Understanding the 'Pucaa' or 'Permanent' Informal Settlements of Delhi

1

THE INFORMAL DELHI Understanding the ‘Pucca’ or ‘Permanent’ Informal Settlements in Delhi Mohan Khidia

University of California, Los Angeles Summer 2016

2

To: UCLA Department of Urban Planning RE: Understanding the ‘Pucca’ or ‘Permanent’ Informal Settlements in Delhi Acknowledgement I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those people who assisted me during my studies and research phase. Firstly, I thank the informants and residents of the various case study sites.

Without their honest inputs, during the interview periods, my studies would have been unsuccessful. I would also like to thanks Vinit Mukhija and Lois Leobardo Estrada for their guidance and agreeing to review this capstone project.

Disclaimer The author respectfully submits this paper in fulfillment of the graduation requirements for the University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Urban Planning. All work is entirely the author’s, unless otherwise cited or noted. Any errors, omissions, or misstatements contained within are the sole responsibility of the author.

3

Table of Contents Abbreviations/Glossary............................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Research Focus ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Research Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 10 Limitations and Scope of work................................................................................................................ 10

SECTION 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 11

SECTION 1A. INFORMAL URBANISM – THE CONCEPT ............................................................................ 12 SECTION 1B. DELHI – URBANIZATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................ 14 SECTION 1C. INFORMAL HOUSING IN DELHI .......................................................................................... 19 SECTION 1D. THE URBAN-RURAL CONTINUUM...................................................................................... 21

.................................................................................................................................................................... 29

SECTION 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 29

SECTION 2A. UNAUTHORIZED COLONIES – DELHI ...................................................................................... 30

Defining Unauthorized Colonies ......................................................................................................... 30

Evolution and Regularization of Unauthorized Colonies .................................................................... 33

SECTION 2B. URBAN VILLAGES – DELHI .................................................................................................. 36 Urban Villages – Definition ................................................................................................................. 36

Evolution of the Villages ..................................................................................................................... 38

SECTION 2C. INFORMALITY – THE PARADOX .......................................................................................... 43

Proposed Classification – Villages ....................................................................................................... 43

Proposed Classification - Unauthorized colonies ................................................................................ 44

SECTION 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 47

SECTION 3A. BUILT ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS........................................................................................ 48

Built Environment Determinants ........................................................................................................ 49

Case Studies ............................................................................................................................................ 53

New Aruna Nagar Colony .................................................................................................................... 53 Rajpur Khurd Extension....................................................................................................................... 58

Mohammadpur Village ....................................................................................................................... 63 Chandan Hola Village .......................................................................................................................... 69

Case Studies’ Comparative Analysis/Matrix ........................................................................................... 78

4

.................................................................................................................................................................... 80

SECTION 4 ................................................................................................................................................... 80

SECTION 4A. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 81

Stakeholders or Key Informants.......................................................................................................... 82 Three levels of proposed interventions: ............................................................................................. 84

SECTION 4B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 90 SECTION 4C. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 93

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 95

APPENDIXES ................................................................................................................................................ 98 .................................................................................................................................................................... 99

5

6

Abbreviations/Glossary DDA: Delhi Development Authority UAC: Unauthorized Colonies

MCD: Municipal Corporation of Delhi NCT: National Capital Territory NCR: National Capital Region DUT: Delhi Union Territory

NDMC: New Delhi Municipal Corporation

GNCTD: Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ESD: Economic Survey of Delhi MPD: Master Plan for Delhi

JNNURM: Jawahar Lal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission Pucca: Permanent construction (unauthorized colonies and villages) Kuchha: Temporary construction (slums) Semi-pucca: Semi-permanent Jhuggi-Jhopdi: Slums

Desakota: Peri-urban areas or urban-rural fringe areas

Abadi deh: Residential settlements' area of typical Indian villages Lal Dora: Boundary that defines Abadi deh or area

Extended Abadi deh: Extended residential settlements' area after defining the lal dora limits Phirni: Extended lal dora, boundary of the extended Abadi deh or area Khet-Khaliyan: Agricultural lands

7

THE INFORMAL DELHI Understanding the ‘Pucca’ or ‘Permanent’ Informal Settlements in Delhi Mohan Khidia

Introduction

Urbanization in India accelerated after the economic reforms of the 1990s. According to the 2011 census, 53 cities in India can be categorized as highly urbanized with a population of over millions; the number is expected to rise to 87 by 2031. Lateral expansion has been a predominant feature of most of the Indian cities, by recent trends this expansion can be described as ‘urban agglomeration’. With the greater degree of urbanization, the problem of space for the poor becomes more acute since the former tends to increase inequality in the distribution of land.

Rural-urban migration coupled with urban expansion results in a large population residing in informal settlements. Delhi is one of the many megacities struggling with rapid urbanization and proliferation of informal settlements. Although there are several types of informal settlements in the city, focus of the report is to understand the phenomenon of "unauthorized colonies" and villages, that is the ‘pucca’ or ‘permanent’ informal settlements.

Unauthorized Colonies" are the illegal settlements that have evolved without the approval of Delhi Development Board (DDA). UACs are produced when private developers develop agricultural land for residential use. Because the development is illegal, the residents are not provided with basic services and amenities. Similar to squatters, dwellers of unauthorized colonies also represent urban poor. However, unlike squatter dwellers, unauthorized colony dwellers are not the marginally poor population of the city. Moreover, unauthorized colony residents have a claim to tenure and are generally secured from eviction. In the absence of many basic amenities, the residents through their economic and political efforts, manage to extend the limited services (Mukherjee, 1988). Periodically, many unauthorized colonies have been legalized. Though no unauthorized colony is regularized since 1984, 895 colonies are considered for regularization out of the list of 1639 UACs (Ahmad, Sridharan, & Kono).

Delhi Development Authority (DDA) classifies villages in the city as ‘urban’ or ‘rural’. In Delhi, there are 362 villages with 135 urban and 227 rural villages. The number of classified ‘urban’ villages increased from 111 in 1981 to 135 in 2011 (DDA). As the name implies, rural villages are the un-urbanized settlements, mostly located in the urban-rural fringes. An "urban village" can be defined as a village which has acquired urban characteristics due to a reduction in its agricultural base by the process of acquisition of landholdings for a public purpose or by its transformation into residential or industrial colonies. The urban agglomeration radically changes the economic patterns of the villages, however, the physical and social patterns of the area gets assimilated with the urban setup at a very slow pace. The pace solely depends on the urban rural 8

interaction. These spaces are widely regarded disastrous for the city’s development. However, similar to the unauthorized colonies, villages of Delhi, perform a vital role in providing affordable housing to the working class and cheap labor to the urban middle class. Inadequate urban planning, poor management, and a series of ineffective land regulations have been accumulated to create a massive urban failure in the form of these settlements.

Research Focus

This research has resulted from a curiosity to discover more about informal settlements in relation to the formal portions of the city. Even after many redevelopment efforts, most of the informal settlements in Delhi still lack basic infrastructure and have uninhabitable built environment. Government efforts, so far, have failed to acknowledge that the phenomenon of unauthorized colonies (UAC) and urban villages in Delhi is relatively complex, it possesses the features of an ‘informal’ as well as ‘formal’ sections of the city. Moreover, the current policy structures have entirely ignored the component of built environment. Therefore, the prime objective is to explore the complexity of the informal settlements rather than viewing them as mere urban entities. The study is divided into three sections. Firstly, it reviews the rapid urbanization and the proliferation of informal urban settlements in Delhi. The section also discusses housing composition in Delhi including housing supply system in the city’s villages and unauthorized colonies. The second section attempts to discover and understand the incidents and policy decisions that have shaped the evolution of these settlements in the city of Delhi. The focus of the research is to trace urban villages and unauthorized colonies from their emergence immediately after the independence of India in 1947, till the recent times.

As Ananya Roy states that informality is not a separate sector but rather a series of transactions that connect different economies and spaces to one another, she points towards a complex continuum of legality and illegality (Roy, 2005). This study attempts to tap into various constellations of this continuum and talks about the differentiation within the informality. So far, all the Master Plans for Delhi (1962, 2001, and 2021) see the unauthorized colonies in the city under a singular category, and the villages are categorized as ‘urban’ or ‘rural’. The third section, therefore, centers on the hypothesis that informal settlements are starkly different across the urban-rural continuum of Delhi in terms of built environment characteristics and urban-spatial patterns. The revised categories of the villages are ‘urban villages’, ‘semi-urban villages’, and ‘rural-villages’. The proposed categories of the UACs are ’urban unauthorized colonies’ and ‘semiurban unauthorized colonies’. UAC can also be categorized as ‘structured’ and ‘unstructured’, based on the spatial characteristics. I aim to conduct a comparative analysis of typical urban patterns to evaluate the relationship between the proposed categories. I also tried to study the ethnographic context of these different areas in order to understand their specific needs and requirements. Clearly, the informal settlements need to be re-categorized. This research raises

9

some important issues concerned with improving conditions in informal urban settlements. In this context, Delhi’s villages and unauthorized colonies need integration through planning interventions. However, such interventions need to look on unauthorized colonies and villages with a fresh perspective.

Research Methodology

Case study sites are selected based on different levels of urbanization, varying location on the Delhi's urban-rural continuum, varying site areas, and personal understanding of the context.

New Aruna Nagar Colony and Rajpur Khurd Extension are the two unauthorized colonies that are selected for the study. Mohammadpur and Chandan Hula are the three selected villages. The study is based on both primary as well as secondary data. The primary data was collected through field observation, interviews and questionnaire survey techniques. The primary data can be divided into three categories: general site characteristics, built environment specific characteristics, and general social characteristics. The general site characteristics data includes site's history, location, surrounding, and connectivity of the area. Built environment data includes the study of street, land use, spaces, plot, density, and building characteristics. A structured questionnaire survey was carried out to gather information on need and issues of the settlement.

Varying sample sizes from 30 to 50 stakeholders were randomly selected for collecting the information. Field visits were starkly different from each other and brought to light many important findings. Secondary data was collected from books, websites, published surveys, similar case studies and articles from journals to understand the evolution, policies and regulations in these settlements. A deductive and interpretative approach is taken to the research involved. Scanned copies of the selected settlements' layouts were collected from Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Quantitative data on population characteristics and size of the settlements was collected from Census of India, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

Limitations and Scope of work There are several barriers to this research that can be attributed to lack of time and resources.

Since field visits were limited to less than few weeks, thereby leaving scope for a certain limitation in interpretation. The time constraints also limited the sample size for the questionnaire. I have not included the regularized unauthorized colonies, therefore the project does not compare the situations between regularized and non-regularized unauthorized colonies. Major section of the analysis is done using Geographical Information System (GIS) tools; however, due to nonavailability of any digital maps, I have to manually draft each settlements' physical features and different research related variables that includes mapping hundreds of informal settlements.

10

SECTION 1

11

SECTION 1A. INFORMAL URBANISM – THE CONCEPT The term ‘informal’ implies to a duality that exists in the socio-economic structures of urban societies. It contrasts ‘traditional’ with ‘modern’ sectors. While traditional represents an unorganized social and economic structure, modern is a manifestation of development. In legal terms, informal is being outside the official practice or procedures. Informal settlements refer to the areas where stringent housing regulations are not imposed. Normally the informal sector thrives with the support of some kind of informal planning or ‘social regularization’ (Lupala, 2002). Informal settlements, a component of urban symbiosis, is a common phenomenon of the rapidly urbanizing world. These are fragmented enclaves evolving in the urban niches of many developing countries. They form a distinct environment, based on their own principle of selforganization. In the midst of cultural and economic zones of an urban fabric, informal settlements potentially enhance the conflict of heterogeneous urban environments. Whether it is illegal settlements in Latin America, suburban commuter towns of massively growing metropolitans, or informal developments within the global South, these settlements provide affordable housing and other services that an official government system cannot always guarantee, therefore, are a crucial part of the urban landscape. From this perspective, informal settlements can be defined as enclaves of parallel governance following their own set of rules but in a symbiotic relationship with the other legal, administrative, and socio-economic frameworks (Khidia, 2016).

The structural cause for the proliferation of informal urbanism is uncontrolled urbanization. It is a process that has gained momentum in the current era and can be bifurcated into two significant phenomena. First, the outward expansion of large cities and metropolitans. The 2011 Census of India shows that most of the metropolitans in the country are experiencing lateral expansion and can therefore be described as ‘urban agglomeration’. New Delhi Metropolitan Region consisting the metropolis of Delhi and its satellite towns like Gurgaon, Noida is an ideal example.

Interestingly, smaller cities in India continue to fill inwardly, while the large metropolitans show minimal infilling and significant outward expansion. The second phenomenon that can be associated to the urbanization in developing countries like India is the gradual increase in urban population (Khidia, 2016). This population growth is because of the coupled effect of rural-urban migration and the natural increase of urban population – in the case of Delhi, it is also the large influx of refugee population immediately after the partition of India in 1947. Further the growth of urban population can also be linked with the merging of towns and jurisdictions during the course of lateral spread, changing the composition of the urban fabric. However, this expansion comes at a cost of surmounting the demand of land. This exponential demand leads to an acute shortage of housing. The high number of informal settlements in Delhi is a product of the disparity between demand and supply of land and housing. Where the explosive population growth has massively increased the demand, the public monopoly of land supply has created an 12

artificial land shortage. In addition, urban poverty has made urban resources unaffordable and unreachable for the urban poor and accelerated the proliferation of informal urban settlements.

Land polarization continued to be a part of India even after the independence from the British rule, primarily because of the acceptance of the standards of British India. The government’s decision of intervention in the land market reflected the ‘socialistic’ and ‘democratic’ ideologies adopted from the West, while the method of intervention, through framing a Master plan, was largely ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ (Mukherjee, 1982). The imbalance in land and housing market forced the poor to seek informal housings as the only viable option available. These parallel developments become permanent and make the formal parameters of the development irrelevant and absolutely ineffective. Further the pressure of democratic electoral politics makes the process irreversible. The development plans and regulations could not alter the establishment of these communities, even with a temptation of improved living conditions in future. The constraints posed by the communities that were unwilling for any de-stabilization of lifestyles allowed further unplanned growth of these settlements (Mihir, 2011). This study endeavors to examine the processes of informal settlement development in relation to inherent spatial qualities. Owing to the fact that housing development in these settlements is not guided by official planning procedures, it is of interest to explore how the settlements densify and acquire certain physical characteristics The question of planning intervention in these settlements is also examined to assess its effectiveness as a tool for regularizing or formalizing informal settlements.

13

SECTION 1B. DELHI – URBANIZATION AND HOUSING Delhi has served as the national capital of India for several centuries. It is a unique kaleidoscope of old traditions and modern forces-stretching from the 10 th century BC’s Indraprastha to the Mughal center and from the Imperial New Delhi to the modern republican capital. When the British first arrived in New Delhi, in the early 19 th century, it was still the capital of the Mughal empire. In the initial colonial years, Delhi was not a major administrative center, it was served as a district military post for Punjab. After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the Mughal emperor was dethroned and the city passed into the direct control of the British Government. The nineteenth century colonial expansion resulted in more forceful imposition of the British cultural values and political powers. By the early 20th century, the population of Delhi dramatically increased, almost a quarter of a million Indians were overfilled in mere 1.5 square mile of the old city. Subsequently, New Delhi was proposed on a vast scale, it spanned more than 30 square miles by 1931. Major influence of the colonial urban planning was the absolute residential stratification of New Delhi based on the existing social hierarchy. The city was branched into rigid spatial categories. The zones of unaffluent population became even more physically and socially isolated, particularly the old city. Infill migration led to overcrowding and deterioration of the urban fabric.

Resultantly, informal settlements started growing rapidly in the west and east of the old city.

Independence from the British rule in 1947 did not change the consolidation very much. Even a decade later, Old Delhi housed almost 60 percent of the city’s total population at an average density of 16,000 people per square mile (Pacione, 2005). But even this could not hint the ultimate fate of the city as the population quadrupled to its present size of over 16 million.

Urbanization in Delhi is marked by urban sprawl caused by large increases in population. This physical phenomenon of urban expansion is instrumented by engulfing adjoining villages into the territory and by transforming rural areas into urban areas. In the process, agricultural areas are transformed into residential or commercial areas. Since 1951, Delhi has expanded significantly from nearly 200 sq. km. to almost 800 sq. km. During 1951-61, the city added 131 sq. km. of land, in the next decade (1961-71) further 119 sq. km. were included in the city’s urban limits. This expansion was mainly because of the city’s reestablishment as British India’s capital (the capital shifted from Calcutta to Delhi) and the partition of India in 1947. The establishment of Delhi Development Authority in 1957, and the first Master Plan in 1962, caused the city to stretch to 326.55 sq. km (Mehra, 2005). Similar to any metropolitan cities, the urban core of Delhi is highly dense in comparison to the peripheral areas. During 1981-91 and 1991-2001, the city experienced urban sprawl, with minimal population growth in the core area. It grew further to 624.28 sq. km. in the 1990s. The present spread of almost 800 sq. km (more than 50 percent area is urbanized) indicates that the entire area under the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) will be entirely urbanized by 2021 (Mehra, 2005).

14

DELHI’S INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE The city of Delhi has a complex structure of municipal administration. The National Capital Territory of Delhi includes most of the Delhi metropolitan’s area administered by the Government of Delhi in tandem with three Municipal Corporations: Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and the Cantonment Board. MCD has the largest administrative area, including all the rural areas within the National Capital Territory (NCT). It is one of the world’s largest municipal corporations, serving an estimated 13.78 million people. The New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) governs the region of New Delhi, the capital area, that includes the concentration of the central government buildings. The Cantonment Board governs a smaller area of military bases and houses in the city. Before 1994, the National Capital Territory (NCT) was known as Delhi Union Territory (DUT). DUT was formed in 1911 when Delhi was named the capital of British India.

Administratively, the NCT still functions as a union territory, which means that the central government exert more control over the territory than other formally distinguished states. In the last few governments’ tenures, attempts have been made to attain statehood with the aim to enhance the political strength of the government of Delhi. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is the major land development official body in the city. It was established out of the Delhi Development Act 1957, primality to administer land acquisition, to draft policies for urban planning, and to frame and implement Master Plans for the city. DDA works in consultation with other public agencies like National Capital Region (NCR) planning board, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), Ministry of Urban Development (MUD), Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), etc. DDA also governs the development of Housing projects; provision of basic amenities like electricity, water supply, and other infrastructure facilities.

(Source: Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, Ministry of Urban Development Government of India).

15

From early 20th century to 1920s, the population increased from just 200,000 to over 300,000. It turned into a million after the partition of India, a phenomenal decadal growth rate of 106.58 per cent was experienced in 1941-51. In the next decade, the population grew to 8.42 million with a growth rate of 43.4 per cent, further over 4 million were added in 2001 (Mehra, 2005). The population growth of the city in the last 6 decades reveals that the growth has been stabilized over time (see Illustration 1). From 1961 to 2011, the overall decadal growth rate was around 50 per cent (Singh, 2013). Despite a decline in the decadal growth rate to 21 percent during 20012011 from 47 percent during 1991-2001, the population density of Delhi in 2011 remains at 11,297 per sq. km., highest among all the states and union territories in India. The current population of 16.79 million makes Delhi one of the most occupied cities in the world. The total built up area of Delhi has also grown rapidly during the century. Overall, from 1997 to 2008, the built up area witnessed an increment from 540.7 sq. km to 791.96 sq. km. (almost 17 percent of the total city area), mainly from acquisition of agriculture land. The city is highly urban, as per 2011 census, 75 percent of the total area (1483 sq. km.) is under the urban jurisdiction. The population density in the urban area is 14,698 persons per sq. km. Almost 98 per cent of the total population resides in urban areas (ESD, 2015). This high level of urbanization puts overwhelming pressure on the delivery of the public services and resources and poses a great challenge on the functioning of the city government.

Illustration 1: Delhi Urban Area Population 1951-2011 16

Much of the population growth can be attributed to poverty induced migration mainly from the neighboring states. This trend was accentuated by the large scale influx of refugee population after the partition of India in 1947. In a very short time, the population of Delhi doubled soon after the independence. To accommodate such a large migrating population, the city had to expand. However, the manner and the pattern of the expansion was highly unplanned and uncontrolled. In order to effectively deal with the increasing population inflow, the city was extended to establish the National Capital Region (NCR) which includes areas of the neighboring states. The NCR sprawls over 34,000 sq. km. and houses a population of 46 million. It is the country’s largest planning region and one of the world’s largest urban agglomerations. National Capital Territory (NCT) constitutes of 1483 sq. km area (less than 3 per cent of the total land area) and approximately 14 million people (Mihir, 2011). As per Census figures, until 2001, the average decadal growth of the NCR was 35 per cent, that dropped to 24 per cent in 2001-11, relatively higher than other major metropolitans in India - the decadal growth of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region is 12 per cent with a population of 18 million and of the Kolkata Metropolitan Region is 7 per cent with a population of 14 million. Today, NCR includes few major satellite cities of Delhi, like Gurgaon, Noida, Ghaziabad, and Faridabad, and the region constitutes almost 7.5 per cent of the national Grand Domestic Product (GDP). However, the unprecedented urban expansion of the NCR during the last few decades has augmented the housing issue in the region.

The changing socio-economic pattern in Delhi coupled with the rapid increase in population resulted in an acute shortage of housing and the related infrastructure. The issue is critical particularly in the case of poor and low-income households. As a result, nearly half of the population is crammed into overcrowded informal settlements. Delhi’s informal housing is an outcome of inappropriate urban planning schemes, poor implementation of the programs, and lack of provision of public housing and land supply. The city’s housing demand is relentless because of the uncontrolled ingress of the migratory population, estimated to be around 78,000 per annum. Housing ownership in Delhi is around 68 per cent and the percentage living in rented units is 28. According to the report on Housing Conditions in Delhi (2012), nearly 40 per cent of house structures are not in good condition, there condition can either be considered poor or satisfactory. In Delhi, the housing sector is under the jurisdiction of Delhi Development Authority (DDA). With the augment of Jawahar Lal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), Delhi government can also involve in the construction of housing for the low income sections, however, DDA holds the authority to allot land for housing development, therefore, the state government initiative is limited. The Delhi Master Plan for 2021 proposes to add 2 million new dwelling units, nearly half for the economically weaker sections. Although housing and urban development is a priority in the planning process of the implementing bodies, yet the total number of homeless population in the city is 0.377 million (Census 2011), highest in the country. According to the Compendium of Environmental Statistics data, there are more than 3 million houses in Delhi with 44.8 per cent housing units being one room units. Clearly, the present formal housing supply

17

system has failed. The most visible illustration of this failure is the high percentage of population residing in the informal settlements in Delhi.

Even after independence, the British standards of urban planning were continued to frame the development model of the ‘modern’ India. The model promoted low densities and high regulations. The standards effectively result in the polarization of land and housing market and therefore placed poor out of the city. The pre-independence approach of low density continued the shortage in housing supply (Mukherjee, 1988). The situation got worse by 1950s, and, the government decided to intervene by framing the first Master Plan for Delhi in 1962 with the formation of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 1957. DDA’s prime responsibility was to implement the Master Plan. Among the many steps taken by DDA, land acquisition was the major form of intervention (Mathur, 2006). The purpose was to balance out the polarized land market, but the outcomes of the modest planning interventions were not encouraging. The Land Acquisition Policy in fact exaggerated the housing shortage by creating an artificial ‘land squeeze’.

DDA caused a serious constraint of land supply due to its monopoly on the land and housing market. During the acquisition process, the stated purpose was to provide 60 per cent of the acquired land for the economically weaker section of the society, but the statement was not respected in practice (DDA, 1986). Clearly, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has not only failed to build enough housing, but also ceased the growth of privately built housing. Apparently, between the first Master Plan in 1962 and latest in 2007, only 4,000 hectares of development area was added in Delhi (less than 5 per cent addition to the 1962 figure), while the population increased by nearly 6 million. This failure highlights the systematic gap between the housing demand and supply. During this period DDA over built middle and higher income housing while under built housing for the economically weaker section, which is evidently the worse effected group (Bhan, 2009).

In Delhi, large scale acquisition policy has been the basis for urban and housing development.

There is a clear monopoly of government over the formal land and housing market. The acquisition policy has adversely effected the production of housing in Delhi, and contributed to increasing the housing shortage. Shortage of housing loans makes the finance policy for housing unproductive, resultantly, much of the resource mobilization for housing is often restricted to self-savings. Moreover, there is lack of coordination between the numerous government departments involved in the housing process. The programs are not synchronized and do not encourage faster land development. The housing shortage has worsened the situation, leaving more than half of the city’s population to reside in informal and unauthorized settlements.

Therefore, it is highly unlikely that without any major extensive modification in the mechanism of the housing delivery process by the public sector, the shortage of housing can be countered in the near future. The first step towards designing a new framework for planning interventions must be the in-depth understanding of the ‘informal’ housing scenario in Delhi.

18

SECTION 1C. INFORMAL HOUSING IN DELHI Urban settlements can be usually categorized into formal and informal settlements. Cedric Pugh divides the housing development in Delhi into three types: formal, informal, and organic. Formal developments are those that are developed on the basis of formally approved plans and regulations, either by government agencies or private developers. The controls and standards framed by planning agencies consider many factors such as environmental and economic viability, or physical and social components. ‘Organic’ developments, on the other hand, are the settlements that exist before urbanization of the region, these are the ‘villages’ (transformed into ‘urban villages’) and the old city areas. These settlements evolve over time and are not illegal, however, they do not follow formal regulations and controls, hence can be classified as a form of ‘informal settlements’. Therefore, they present a paradox as they can be termed both as ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ (Pugh, 1991). As a result of the rapid urbanization, these settlements are subjected to overcrowding and congestion. In most cases, condition of organic developments is not much better than informal developments.

According to United Nations Habitat Program, the term ‘informal’ encapsulate the characteristics of settlements, mostly residential, on which the occupants have no legal claim, or unplanned settlements that do not comply with planning and building regulations. Informal housing or unconventional dwellings are the housing units that are inappropriate to human habitation.

These are evolved because of lack of availability of affordable housing in the legal housing market. Such structures can be permanent (pucca), semi-permanent (semi-pucca), or temporary (kuchha). Boundaries of informal settlements are usually not easy to define because of their organic development pattern. In many instances, their ‘informal’ boundaries merge with the ‘formal’ section of a city or a town. Living in such settlements often associated with health risks, poor sanitation and water supply, and many other services essential for a habitable environment.

Informal settlements in India are poorly monitored and collecting related data is a strenuous task.

In the Indian context, owners of informal settlements have either no rights of occupation on the property or have ‘quasi-legal’ right. Houses that are built on legally owned land but without any formal approval falls in the category of ‘quasi-legal’ development (Mehta & Mehta, 1991). In such settlements, majority of the dwellers are from low to very low income groups, a small percentage of the dwellings is also occupied by middle to high income groups. These settlements are both physically and socially uninhabitable. Informal settlements constitute 43 per cent of the total population in the developing world, while in the developed nations their fraction is about 6 per cent in the composition (UNHSP, 2003). Location of these settlements significantly determines their characteristics, therefore, it is crucial to understand the gradient of urbanization in Delhi.

19

INFORMAL SETTLEMENT TYPOLOGIES - DELHI

As discussed earlier, the main domains of this study are the ‘unauthorized colonies’ and the ‘urban villages’ which are comprehensively discussed in the following sections.

Informal developments in Delhi can be divided into seven basic typologies:

Unauthorized Colonies – These settlements are the residential pockets that are illegally developed mostly on private lands. They do not possess building permission. Unauthorized colonies have a moderate tenure security. These dwellings rarely have any adequate physical or social infrastructure.

Currently, there are about 1,600 unauthorized colonies in the city of Delhi, and house over 6 per cent of Delhi’s inhabitants (0.88 million).

Regularized unauthorized Colonies – These are mere the modified version of unauthorized colonies that are regularized by the city’s government. Characteristics of these colonies are similar to unauthorized colonies, but they have a high tenure security and are formally provided with basic civic amenities. About 567 colonies were regularized by the government in 1977, and 12.7 per cent of Delhi’s total population (2 million) live in them.

Urban Villages – These are the rural villages which have been urbanized in a haphazard and planned manner in the process of urban expansion. These areas possess rural characters in terms socioeconomic, and physical patterns. Urban villages are legal developments and have a high tenure security, but lack basic urban amenities. Altogether there are 135 notified urban villages in Delhi which are home to approximately 6.4 per cent of the city’s total population (1 million).

Rural Villages - These are the villages located in the unorganized or peripheral zones of Delhi. The characteristics of these settlements are similar to a typical village in any other part of India. Around 5 per cent of Delhi population (0.88 million) live in the 227 rural villages. It is estimated that nearly all rural villages will be urbanized by 2021.

Jhuggi-Jhopdi Clusters (JJ Clusters) – These settlements are the result of encroachment of public or private lands. The condition of such clusters is extremely deteriorated with almost no provision of basic urban amenities. These inhabitants have the lowest tenure security among other types of informal settlements, therefore the inhabitants always fear eviction. Roughly, there are 1,071 JJ clusters in Delhi that currently house approximately 14.8 per cent of the city’s population (2.44 million).

Notified Slum Areas – These are the improved versions of the Jhuggi-Jhopdi Clusters (JJ Clusters).

Notified slums are declared notified under the Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act, 1956.

Under this act, these areas have slightly better tenure security and living conditions than JJ Clusters.

At present, 19.4 per cent of the entire population of Delhi (3.1 million) resides in such slums.

JJ Resettlement Colonies – These colonies comprise of the resettled households of JJ Clusters. The resettlement programs were carried out in the 1970s. The total estimated proportion of the total population living in such colonies is 12.7 per cent (2.1 million). Mostly located on the city’s peripheries, these colonies also suffer from several infrastructure inadequacies.

Source: New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), Delhi Development Authority (DDA), (Ishtiyaq & Kumar, 2011), and (Mehra, 2005).

20

SECTION 1D. THE URBAN-RURAL CONTINUUM Cities constantly evolve and exhibit their characteristics through their urban fabric. Cities can have unique hidden urban structures that can be understood by mapping and measuring the elements like land use and population density. Spatial anatomy of a city is an outcome of policies, events, and technologies over time. Therefore, it is important in today’s context to analyze and monitor the spatial expansion of cities. The spatial character is defined by the distribution pattern of urban settlements. A general pattern seen in most urban environments is that the settlements that are in close proximity to urban core or urban edge are more likely to be effected by the economic development of the core. Contrary to this, settlements that are remotely located will be least effected. Today, a different pattern emerges in which the development has shifted from the core to the peripheries or fringes. In Delhi the decentralization policy has led to the urbanization of the fringes (Gihar, 2003). Urban expansion also brings problems like congestion, pollution, shortage of housing and basic amenities. To counter this, more and more edge cities or satellite cities like Noida, Gurgaon, Faridabad, Ghaziabad, etc. are developed. Resultantly, the urban fabric of Delhi now constitutes of fragmented urban areas, rather than a concentric growth (see Illustration 2). This has facilitated a large fraction of the population to reside in these edge cities and commute long distance through a wide network of transportation system. Thus the spatial organization of Delhi can be explained as a composite model, that is radial, multi-nuclei, or mono-polycentric with a dominant center and some sub-centers, a typical pattern of many Indian cities (see Illustration 3).

Like many other Asian cities, Delhi is also exponentially urbanizing. Moreover, it is also surrounded by agricultural or rural areas. Such conditions give rise to an urban rural conflict. The conflict results in overlaps of economies, traditions, and population. The subsequent externalities are both positive and negative. Establishment of new developments in rural areas greatly impact the rural spheres, bringing in foreign lifestyle and taking away the traditional ones. Conventional definition of urban spatial structures views urban and rural spaces as a dichotomy. They are perceived as two distinct entities with defined edges. However, with the advent of modern trends of urbanization, the boundaries between the two spaces is becoming invisible. The integration or the urban-rural overlap can be seen as a transition space that shows the amalgamation or continuation of elements of both the societies. Therefore, the relation between the two spaces can be explained more as a fusion than a dichotomy, or it is better understood as a ‘rural-urban continuum’ (Bell, 1992). The urban-rural continuum means the ceaseless interactions of social formations from a village to a range of urban settlements.

In Western context, the urban transect is used as a tool to understand the urban-rural continuum.

It is based on the new urbanist ideology and allocates elements to human habitat based on

21

22

appropriate geographic locations (Duany, Andres & Talen, 2002). It is usually illustrated by a section that shows gradual decrease in intensity from the center to the fringes of a city. It effectively explains the relationship between built environments, density, population, etc. In this study, the transect can be used to explain the previous discussion on the distribution patterns of urban settlements. McGee (1991), however, argues that in Asian context, where the traditional settlements transform over time, distinguishing urban and rural spaces does not hold validity (McGee, Koppel, & Ginsburg, 1991). Transformation is a long process which results in hybrid and fragmented urban and rural landscapes. The space between city and rural areas is commonly known as periurban areas or urban-rural fringe. This urban rural interface is spatially located on the urban periphery. It is the area of transition between urban services’ limits and agricultural or partial rural land uses (Saxena & Sharma, 2015). Ramachandran defines the urban-rural fringe as a mix of urban and rural populations and land uses where urban land uses of the city overlaps the agricultural land uses of villages, and people commute to the city daily for mainly work and other daily needs. The inner limits of the interface begin closer to the city and extends to the outer limits of mostly rural areas, a surface of urban-rural duality. These areas comprised of high spatial interaction of commercial activities with small holding of agriculture and related activities (Ramachandran, 1989). Peri urban areas growth is structured by urban sprawl and rural urban migration. In addition, locating new manufacturing or commercial development, services like airports, railway stations, universities etc. also manipulate the growth of periurban areas.

Population density of urban rural fringes is usually more than the surrounding regions but less than the central city. These parts have particular characteristics and particular problems: uncoordinated regulations and guidelines, partial penetration of urban utilities, and continuously evolving urban landscape (Saxena & Sharma, 2015).

McGee uses the term ‘Desakota’. It means village-town. Desakota is linked to urban areas by the means of cheap transport. In these areas non-agricultural activities are much more intense than a purely rural area. Dupont defines peri-urban area as ‘an area outside existing urban agglomeration where large changes taking place over space and time’ (Dupont, 2005). Urban fringe is the term used by Bryant et al. to define the complex interdependencies of urban and rural milieus (Bryant, Russwurm, & McLellan, 1982). This multitude of conceptualizations of urban-rural interface can be used to illustrate the urban rural continuum or gradient of Delhi.

Bentinck (2000) superimposed various concepts to draw the rural-urban fringe delimitation of Delhi (see Illustration 5). Delineating urban rural gradient becomes more important for understanding the urban morphological structure of the city. In this study, the spatial organization of the city is derived by superimposing the concepts presented by Ramachandran (1989), McGee (1991), Bryant et al. (1982), and Bentinck (2000) over three urban components (or maps) – (i) distribution of population density (see Illustration 6) (ii) the spatial pattern of urban expansion (see Illustration 7) and (iii) future land allocation map derived from the Master Plan 2021 for the city.

23

24

25

URBAN EXPANSION, POPULATION DENSITY, AND THE MASTER PLANS Urban Expansion Delhi – From 1961 to 2011, Delhi has seen a significant decadal growth rate of 50 per cent. Much of the growth has occurred on the peripheries. The city expanded to almost 131 sq. km. during 1951-61, and 119 sq. km in 1961-71. Delhi’s total area is 1483 sq. km. out of which approximately 702 sq. km. is urbanized, new urbanizable area is 780 sq. km. Delhi experienced urban sprawl immediately after the advent of first Master Plan in 1962. Altogether, the city has expanded to approximately 800 sq. km. from 200 sq. km.

Population Density – The density is less than 4,000 persons per sq. km. in the urban core of New Delhi, and in the North East district it is almost 36,000 persons per sq. km. Much of the density came up in the form of unplanned manner with the spread of informal settlements.

Delhi Master Plan 2021 – Delhi Master Plan 2021 bifurcates the city into 17 planning zones: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K-I, K-II, L, M, N, O, P-I, and P-II. Delhi Development Authority has earmarked a developable land bank of 27,629.9 hectares with an ambition to plan around 2.4 million housing units. The plan proposes five new sub-cities: North Delhi, North West Delhi, West Delhi, South West Delhi, and South Delhi. Zones j, K-I, K-II, L, M, N, O, P-I, and P-II are dedicated for residential developments. Land in the extended urban areas is likely to be used for different land uses in the following proportions: residential 45-55 per cent, commercial 4-5 per cent, industrial 4-5 per cent, green/recreational 15-20 per cent, public and semi-pubic facilities 8-10 per cent, and circulation 10-12 per cent. The projected space for an average person would be roughly 40 sq. m.

There has been two Master Plans previous to the current one, MPD 1962 and MPD 2001.

These plans were mainly strategized to acquire new lands for future developments. The process was structured and implemented by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

Throughout, the approach was top-down that subsequently led to many problems such as implementation failures, land freeze, corruption in the planning agencies, and exacerbation of the housing shortage issue. The current Master Plan, MPD 2021, is aimed to ease the burden of the population, by constructing new dwelling units for all sections in partnership with private developers and cooperative societies. The vision is to develop Delhi into a sustainable and a smart city by 2021.

Source: Census of India 2001-2011; National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA); and Delhi Master Plan 1962, 2001, and 2021.

26

The derived urban-rural gradient map of Delhi is dissected into six zones: urban core, general urban, sub-urban, peri-urban, rural, and extreme rurality (see Illustrations 8 and 9). One end of this continuous scale is the urban core, the other is extreme rurality or nature. The delineation is closely related to Duany’s new urbanist concept or the urban transect, the only difference is the addition of peri-urban zone. The structure can be bifurcated into rural and urban expanses: the urban core and the general urban zones demarcate the urban expanse, and the rural and the absolute rurality zones (nature) demarcate the rural expanse. The sub-urban and the peri-urban zones can be summarized as the urban-rural interface/fringe or the Desakota. This is the expanse in the spectrum where direct interaction between urban and rural spaces takes place. The urban impact on this stretch gradually decreases with the movement towards the rural expanse, and the rural impact gradually increases, and vice-versa. Absolute rurality is the zone located at the extreme edge of the urban-rural gradient, it possesses almost no urban character. The map clearly indicates that in Delhi the rural zone occupies the highest percentage of the land, while other zones are roughly equally distributed. It is obvious that the conventional ways of envisioning, planning, and zoning in India have not emanated much success, the urban-rural gradient or continuum can be viewed as both a conceptual framework for understanding the characteristics that help distinguish the spectrum of urban and rural places, and presents an alternative that could produce effective plans, rules and regulations. The tool can be used for the future place making and community development acknowledging the contrast between various layers of the urban-rural continuum.

As the economic pressure of urban centers pushes the city out into the peri-urban areas or ‘Desakotas’, ecosystems in these areas are placed under growing stress. Since the peri-urban areas are the least monitored and inspected areas in a metropolitan, they become the principal supplier of land for informal settlements and markets. Peri-urban spaces often become sites of displacement of poor people being pushed out of the city. It is also a zone of continuous political conflicts between various interest groups. The informal and illegal nature of peri-urban areas attract the vulnerability of those who practice it. Consequently, acute shortage of housing within urban boundaries and the continues flow of rural-urban migrants result in expansion of informal settlements in the fringes. The informal land development is propelled by the compulsory land acquisition mandates. Dwindling formal land and housing opportunities are replaced by informal ones, that includes temporary occupation of land, or permanent developments resulted from farmers selling rural lands for construction. The informal development of agricultural lands to evade land acquisition is the prime factor responsible for the formation of large number of unauthorized or illegal colonies in the urban-rural fringes of Delhi. Nonetheless, there remains a lack of understanding of the dynamic urban-rural interaction, and a lack of effective approaches to manage this challenging zone. Before distinguishing the informal settlements based on their location on the urban-rural continuum, it is essential to thoroughly understand the concepts of ‘unauthorized colonies’ and ‘urban villages’, and the policies and guidelines that shaped them.

27

28

SECTION 2

29

SECTION 2A. UNAUTHORIZED COLONIES – DELHI Defining Unauthorized Colonies Delhi Development Authority (DDA) defines unauthorized colonies as the residential pockets that have emerged without the city’s authorization and in disregard of the master plan and zonal plan regulations (Chakrabarti, 2001). The condition of these colonies is marginally better than the slum settlements in Delhi. Unauthorized colonies are a product of the systematic failure of the government. First, the administration failed to counter land polarization. Second, there was a complete abdication of responsibility on the parts of city authorities to check any illegal developments. Hundreds of unauthorized colonies have evolved since 1947. Most of these colonies have developed on agricultural land on the city’s peripheries, probably due to lack of monitoring and low price of land in the urban-rural fringes (Ahmad, Sridharan, & Kono, 2012). In 1957, DDA announced the acquisition of undeveloped land within the city’s urban limit. To escape acquisition, many farmers opted to develop and sell the land as cheap residential plots.

This haphazard method of developing land, without the approval of the city authorities, formed the foundation for the informal settlement typology later became known as ‘unauthorized colonies’ (Mukherjee, 1982). According to Delhi Development Authority, there are more than 1600 unauthorized colonies in Delhi. Many of them have been regularized from time to time, the regularization announcements usually coincide with the state or general elections. Over the last several decades many new colonies are added to the list. In 2008, ‘provisional regularization’ certificates were given to these colonies by the government, few months before the state elections, resulting in a political advantage to the ruling party. In the following year, the process of redevelopment and renewal of these colonies was initiated with an aim to bring them into the urban mainstream (Ganju, 2012). However, the plans were never successfully executed because the urban morphology and spatial patterns of these colonies are vastly different from the planned or formal development guided by the Delhi Master Plans.

The estimates of the population residing in the unauthorized colonies of Delhi varies considerably. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) estimated 4 million people (Census of India, 2011), that indicates almost 25 percent of Delhi’s population inhibits in the unauthorized colonies. The number counted by the Economic Survey of Delhi in 2008-09 was only 740,000 people (that is 5.3 percent of Delhi’s population). There is a higher probability that the actual number is closer to the GNCTD estimates (Sheikh & Banda, 2014). According to 1981 estimates, approximately 40 percent of the population resides in the unauthorized colonies. After the last regularization process enacted in 1977, several new colonies were formed. Currently, the estimated population growth in these colonies is 3.1 percent (Census of India, 2011), more than the urban growth rate of the city (2.45 percent). That means an addition of 86,000 people or

30

31

approximately 17,200 households per year (Ahmad et al., 2012). The large proportion of initial inhabitants of these colonies were usually the rural-urban migrants or the underprivileged urban poor, structured to the ‘older social order’. They came and stayed in these settlements to gain a foothold in the city and to understand the ‘new quasi-democratic’ structure of the city. Unlike slum dwellers, they have resources to buy or rent plots; therefore, cannot be categorized as ‘marginal poor’. With the increasing scarcity of land in the city, unauthorized colonies are no longer havens for low-income migrants. It is now largely inhabited by middle income working class, and in some cases by the affluent as well. The transaction of property in unauthorized colonies, although illegal, is possible by a “power of attorney” - a process that is recognized by the law courts. This shows that unauthorized colonies have slightly more secure land tenure than the squatter settlements. In this scenario, it can be interpreted that unauthorized colonies exist at a threshold legal space, while they are not considered a part of the formal city, they are also not perceived as entirely illegal like squatters (Mukherjee, 1982).

The buildings in these colonies are solid concrete structures, most of the houses are built using reinforced cement concrete (RCC) frame. The walls are usually made of solid building materials like stone and brick. However, the construction is carried out without the formal approval of the city authorities and do not adhere to the land use restrictions and building specifications (Ishtiyaq & Kumar, 2010). Instead the builders follow standard ‘rules of thumb’ that are derived by simplifying the actual codes. In many cases, the end product closely resembles the houses of the formal section of the city. The higher tenure security and investment capabilities of the dwellers result in a much rapid physical consolidation of these colonies than squatter settlements (Mukherjee, 1982). The solidness of the structures and high tenure security largely protect these settlements from demolition orders of the authorities. As the buyers bought the land, they immediately started establishing a residential colony by rapidly constructing houses on it to avoid land acquisition. The minimum step towards evading acquisition would be constructing a single room, in many cases rooms were constructed to appear old. Once the land is recognized as ‘already developed’, the residents or the owners would push for its recognition. The process starts with asking for basic services and amenities. The informal methods used in these settlements can be seen in the illegal extensions of the authorized buildings as well. This shows that neglecting codes and specifications is not unique to the unauthorized colonies, in fact it is a widely practiced phenomenon throughout the city. Similar to the unauthorized colonies, violations of codes in the formal housings is also shielded by the ‘parallel’ or ‘unofficial’ system of bribes and political pressure. The authorized and the unauthorized parts of the city are linked by the same ‘parallel system’ (Mukherjee, 1982). This system creates a ‘grey’ area that makes the unauthorized colonies distinct from the ‘black/informal’ and ‘white/formal’ dichotomies of the city’s structure.

32

In spite of the numerous advantages that these colonies offer, unauthorized colonies exact tremendous costs to the city in the form of environmental and socio-economic degradation.

Although some basic amenities such as drainage and water supply are periodically provided to many unauthorized colonies through political representatives or community level selfdevelopment initiatives; however, the absence of formal interventions makes these services largely inadequate. For instance, most of the buildings are constructed without following the building codes and byelaws, therefore, are susceptible to natural calamities like earthquake. A large number of buildings lack septic tanks that results in water contamination (Ahmad et al., 2012). Trash accumulation and unpaved streets are easily noticeable in such settlements. These colonies are highly dense due the overexploitation of land by land developers. There are no dedicated green spaces and other spaces for social or community infrastructure. In addition, the residents of unauthorized colonies cannot easily get formal loan and mortgage due the absence of legal status of their property. As most of the activities performed in Unauthorized colonies are illegal, they have one of the largest share in corruption in the city. Illegitimate building permissions and procurement of electricity and other basic services cost the residents high monetary losses (Ahmad et al., 2012). One service that was provided to the colonies in the earlier stages of evolution is electricity. Unauthorized colonies are recognized as inhabited areas, and according to Delhi Electric Supply Unit (DESU) electricity must be provided to all inhabited areas.

The supply of electricity is the major factor that propelled the growth of industries in the unauthorized colonies. Moreover, the lack of regulations and low investments attracted small entrepreneurs (Mukherjee, 1982). The resultant growth of small scale industries in these colonies act as one of the component that links the ‘informal’ to the ‘formal’, along with the supply of affordable housing and cheap labor. The complication of the unauthorized colonies can only be understood by exploring their evolution over time in relation to the city’s growth. The next section, therefore, focusses on unraveling the layers of policy decisions and government interventions that led the development of the unauthorized colonies. The section also discusses the processes and criteria of regularizing the colonies.

Evolution and Regularization of Unauthorized Colonies

India’s independence in 1947 resulted in surplus population increase, largely because of internal rural-urban migration and the refugee influx due to the partition. To accommodate the tremendous influx of population, the city had to expand (Mehra, 2005). The population increase caused the already high land prices to ascend tremendously. As a result, numerous illegal settlements in different parts of the city, emerged without any civic authorization. Opportunist real estate developers created these colonies targeting the incoming lower and middle class population. The situation got worse by the mid-50s, and the government decided to intervene by the means of redevelopment programs. A twenty-year masterplan for the city was framed 33

with the creation of a new implementing body, Delhi Development Authority (DDA). By 1962, the first Master Plan for the city was sanctioned. The highlight of the Master Plan was the Land acquisition of agricultural land using the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The Act says that the state through DDA would own all undeveloped land, and thereby controls all the transactions and development of land within the city’s urbanization limit. The decision ceased any form of commercial or private mode of land supply, this resulted in a ‘land freeze’ (Mathur, 2006). The decision to acquire land was made public in 1957, but the actual legal notices to the landowners were not served till 1959. The stated purpose of the land acquisition practice, according to the Master Plan, was to develop large scale development projects. However, the time gap between the announcement and the implementation of the policy resulted in a chaotic situation. Several illegal colonies developed between the two-year delay period. The farmers or landowners subdivided and sold their lands as residential plots to avoid the land acquisition by the DDA. The landowners took advantage of the time gap and made great profits, in comparison to selling their lands to DDA at a fixed and relatively lower cost. Buildings were constructed overnight, in some cases, structures were made to appear old to prove their continuing existence. The settlements were made with minimal development and without any provision of basic services. Housing mechanism in unauthorized colonies is very similar to formal housing supply system. While most of the developments were inhabited by poor sections of the society, taking advantage of the uncertain environment, some affluent people also put up such colonies (Mathur, 2006). This method of illegal development resulted in the formation of the settlements that were later termed as unauthorized colonies.

The housing supply system in unauthorized colonies can be broadly classified into four types: owner as a builder, developer as a builder, collaborative development between land’s owner and builder, and rental housing system. People in these areas bought land irrespective of the lack of basic services. This tendency reflects the extreme polarity in the land and housing supply. The buyers had no other affordable options available in the housing market. Land in these areas were sold through ‘Power of Attorney’ (Abraham, Ramchand, Ananth, Mohta, & Hariharan, 2014). It gives the owner to use the land for any desired purpose, that includes building a house. The desire to take risk in investing in unauthorized colonies also highlights the belief in the tenure security of these colonies (Mukherjee, 1988). In most of the cases, residents usually get successful in stalling any demolition or regulatory orders with the help of political influence.

With the onset of an unauthorized colony, the efforts for regularization begin. Regularization means formally acknowledging the existence of a settlement. For the colony dwellers, demanding for regularization is a constant effort to get legitimacy from the city authorities that eventually leads to the provision of infrastructure and other facilities. Till regularization, the residents have to evade demolition orders of DDA. The mode chosen by the residents is political bargaining. Their bargaining and manipulation power entirely relies on their strength in numbers.

34

The ‘unofficial’ or ‘parallel’ system works in the final stages of authorization (Mukherjee, 1982).

In 2006, however, the Supreme Court prohibited regularization without provision of basic services. Also echoed in the 2021 Master Plan, drafted in 2001, that states that regularization must ensure ‘minimum necessary services’. This decision worked as an obstacle in politically driven regularizations. Previously in 1961, 1969, and 1977 about 110, 101 and 567 unauthorized colonies were regularized respectively (Ahmad et al., 2012). Since 1977, several times the question to authorize these colonies has been raised. In the last decade, the government has prepared a framework of policies to regularize such colonies. This framework is based on two documents: The March 2008 notification, ‘Regulations for Regularization of unauthorized Colonies’, and ‘The Revised Guidelines 2007’ for regularization of unauthorized colonies in Delhi.

These documents outline the criteria and procedure of regularization. But neither of the documents specifically defined regularization, leading to uncertainty and no uniformity.

Currently, there is a mounting pressure on the implementing bodies of regularization of unauthorized colonies. According to the Master Plan, an unauthorized colony will be considered for regularization only if it satisfies the following conditions: it must have been established before 31 March 2002; it must not be on forest land; it must not hinder any provision of infrastructure; and it must not violate regulations of the Archaeological Survey of India. A total 1639 unauthorized colonies are under consideration for regularization (Economic Survey of Delhi, 2014-15). In late 2012, the government issued an order marking 895 colonies ‘eligible for regularization’; however, due to litigation and other policy issues, no substantial decision could be taken (Sheikh & Banda, 2014).

The obvious benefits of regularization are: improvement in basic services and amenities, and clear land title. Current regularization policy, however, is limited to settlement level. That means regularization of unauthorized colonies does not imply that residents will have improved land title on individual plots. Even after a colony is regularized, individual house owner will have to get their property registered, and these processes are extremely strenuous. In addition, most of the houses in these colonies are builder flats, that arises a dilemma of multi-ownerships. That asks for an urgent need to frame a policy to solve the issue. A number of colonies that were last regularized in 1977 still lack basic infrastructure and have uninhabitable built environment.

Mainly because in the current policy structures, the physical characteristics and spatial patterns are entirely ignored. Unauthorized colony is a relatively complex phenomenon; it possesses the features of an ‘informal’ as well as ‘formal’ parts of the city. The physical infrastructure can only be improved if the existing conditions are broadly evaluated and analyzed.

35

SECTION 2B. URBAN VILLAGES – DELHI Urban Villages – Definition An important factor of urbanization in India is the village located in the peripheries of a city get engulfed during the course of urban expansion. Currently, there are over 300 such villages in Delhi. The inclusion of villages within a city is a long drawn process. But, first, it is necessary to understand the anatomy of Indian villages. An Indian village is composed of residential settlements (abadi deh), and agricultural fields and pasture fields surrounding them (khetkhaliyan), together called a ‘revenue village’ (mauza) with defined administration boundaries.

Often it includes one or more subsidiary settlements or ‘satellite villages’ (Shah, 2012). The process of integrating these villages into the urban areas leads to the formation of ‘urban villages’. The metropolitan of Delhi is mostly built by acquiring agricultural lands from the villages.

While the city was growing these villages remained within their boundaries or ‘lal doras’ (Shrivastav, 2007). In the urban milieus of cities in most of the developing world, urban village is a manifestation of rural life. These are the collection of neighborhoods that are self-sustainable where the characteristics of a ‘rural village’ remain intact. The term ‘urban village’ has different connotations in Indian and Western contexts. Historically, in the US, this term is used to describe ethnic European immigrant settlements, such as Germantown in Philadelphia, Greenwich Village in New York, or Little Italy in San Francisco. In recent times, new urbanism planners define the concept as a planned community that is sustainable, walkable, and environmental friendly (Wang, 2014). However, in India, urban villages are often compared to slums and shanty towns.

‘Urban villages’ are the rural settlements that have acquired urban characteristics due to the transformation of its agricultural base into residential and industrial colonies in the process of land acquisitions by the Delhi government. The settlements were rural in the past, therefore, they show some distinct rural characteristics, but their location attributes to their urban character. Similar to urban areas, majority of workforce is now involved in non-agricultural activities, mostly in the informal sector. In Delhi there are 362 villages out of which 115 are ‘rural villages’ and 227 are ‘urban villages’ (Shrivastav, 2007). The Master Plan for Delhi 1962 defined ‘rural villages’ as areas that are beyond urbanizable limits, and ‘urban villages’ are settlements that have varying capacity of employment generation. Urban forms of such villages are typically characterized by compact and high density development, mixed use zoning, and highly pedestrianized environment. These characteristics, however, have become the constraining factors for the realization of urban villages in India.

Urban growth in developing world is mostly driven by rural to urban migration, rather than by the economic forces as in the Western countries. As cities continue to expand, the local people’s

36

37

struggle for land and security creates a dilemma for the city authorities. The situation in Delhi was impelled by large-scale acquisition of agricultural lands by DDA for planned developments in Delhi. The villagers lose their farms and the major economic source, and the village loses its traditional ambience. Lal doras confines the old traditional village lifestyle within its boundaries.

A somewhat different urban scenario emerges where ‘spontaneous’ settlements are built as an extension to the ‘organic’ and the ‘formal’ parts of the city. Urban villages present another paradox in terms of migration. In traditional sense, rural urban migration means population moving from villages to towns and cities. Suburbanization, on the other hand, means the population movements in the opposite direction, the result is urbanization of a rural area. In the case of urban villages, however, the scenario can be described as a case of ‘false mobility’. The population has not moved from rural to urban areas, it is the city that has come to the population (Mehra, 2005). This process does not happen overnight, as a result, many of the typical rural elements remain in these settlements even after being urbanized. From this perspective, urban villages appear as anomalies in socio-cultural terms as well as a part of the urban environment.

On the city level, the village adopts urban characters, on the tectonic level, the interactions are defined by conventional norms. The entire process of the transformation begins with the acquisition of the agricultural lands.

Evolution of the Villages

In pre-independence period, both agricultural and residential lands were acquired for the purpose of redevelopment, but the first Master Plan in 1962, under the land acquisition schemes, the farmlands were acquired for construction of planned colonies, and the residential areas of the villages were demarcated by a boundary called lal dora, a revenue term used since 1908 (MPD 2021, 2007). The term lal dora was first used when the revenue settlement was undertaken decades before the independence. The lal dora areas were kept free from building regulations.

The exemption was not applicable to factories, slaughter houses, etc. In the lal doras, traditional revenue records and land registration methods are maintained by the Revenue Department (Shrivastav, 2007). The practice of land acquisition began during the British period, in 1931, 25 villages were engulfed into Delhi. Further 22 villages were added between 1931 and 1951. The acquired land was mainly meant for civil projects like railway stations, universities, vegetable markets (mandi) and the like (Chattopadhay, 2014). When the partition took place in 1947, a large number of refugees migrated to India to settle in Punjab and Delhi. Due to this rapid increase in population, agricultural land fragmented which was economically non-beneficial. To counter the issue, the Punjab government enacted a law, The East Punjab Holding Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948. The Act was meant to prevent fragmentation of agricultural land by initiating compulsory consolidation of holdings. This act was borrowed to Delhi in 1951. The consolidation of holdings under the act was completed by 1954. It was 38

followed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954. Rural villages in the urbanizable limits were declared urban under the notification issued by the government of Delhi (DDA, 1986). The legal consequences include the provisions of Master Plan/Zonal Plan, building bye-laws and other related guidelines become applicable to the village along with provision of basic infrastructure (MPD 2021, 2007).

To compensate the distress caused by the rapid transformation, abadi or the inhabited lands of these villages were exempted from most of the Development Control Regulations (DCR) mandated by the city. Whereas the acquired agricultural lands were planned according to the DCR guidelines. As per a 1963 notification by Delhi government, buildings in lal doras do not need to sanction building plan before construction. These villages were neither regulated by any building controls nor they were connected to any infrastructure (Shrivastav, 2007). The notification indicates that the government was not able to predict the vibrant economic growth of the villages. This was done in order to preserve the village original character, but with the uncontrolled urbanization of the city, Delhi’s villages eventually lost their rural character.

Random buildings and encroachment block sunlight and ventilation, making the phenomenon an urban nightmare. Unrestrained invasion of non-compatible uses and abolishment of traditional activities led to the disintegration of the communities. Between the time when the lal doras were first earmarked in 1908 and 1952, when the consolidation exercise was reinstituted, these villages expanded beyond the earlier defined limits. From 1951 to 1954, the consolidation process was limited to integrating only agricultural land, and no provision was made to provide land for village extension. This provision of extending the village limits was added by amending the Act in 1963, the new boundary was termed as ‘phirni’ or ‘extended lal dora’. Phirnis are the areas between lal doras and the new village boundaries, the land between a phirni and a lal dora are termed as ‘extended abadi’. Extended abadi areas were subject to all restrictions and the residents need to avail building permission for constructing houses outside lal doras (DDA, 1986).

Gradually, needs and requirements of the community changed and rural settlements started adopting urban characters. As a consequence of urban and economic forces discharged on villages, massive transformation in their physical, and socio-cultural environments takes place.

Much of the rural settlements have almost entirely merged into the surrounding urban forms with changes easily noticeable such as availability of basic infrastructure, heavy commercialization, contemporary built forms, etc. Some villages have experienced humongous decadal growth. In the traditional layout, narrow lanes and compact development assured collective security and mutual interdependence. But now when the agricultural fields have been acquired, the village population is intolerably cramped because of extensive pressure on the limited land resource. These villages lack even the basic services like water supply and sewerage disposal. Most of the dwelling units in all 135 urbanized villages in Delhi do not have vehicular access. The villages are being continuously infused with illegal and deleterious activities, but 39

there is no mechanism to control them. The ‘slummification’ of the villages made them heavily dependent on metropolitan Delhi for their survival.

Often the acquired lands are allotted less desired uses because of lack of development plan and weak policy roadmap. But the most important issue is the lack of prioritizing for the development work. Involvement of multiple civil agencies in the development process creates a wide gap between planning and implementation of the policies. ‘Rural areas’ in Delhi are categorized as ‘special zones’ for planning by the Rural Development Board (RDB) of the city. But any planning proposal needs approval from DDA (Datta, 2004). This creates a conflict of interests between the DDA and the RDB, which results in delays in the finalization of a plan. Lack of building and land use regulations give birth to several illegal construction and commercial activities. Resultantly, urban villages have become the hubs for small scale unregulated industries. Once the conventional income source, agricultural related activities, is lost, the villagers are compelled to look for alternative source of livelihood to fit in the new economic and social setting. Deprived of their traditional activities villagers open small shops, home industries; rent premises for tenements, godowns, or offices (DDA, 1986). Although government has banned polluting and hazardous industries, but several of them continue to operate secretly with the support of the ‘parallel’ system. In a recent report by the World Health Organization (WHO), Delhi is ranked the most polluted city in the World, and industry is one of the most important contributor. Currently, there are more than 100,000 unauthorized industrial units functioning in the residential areas in Delhi, mostly in ‘urban villages’. Typically, these industries establish on the fringes of ‘urban villages’. Small scale entrepreneurs prefer villages over government regulated industrial areas because the cost of operation and landuse restrictions are much lower in urban villages. Highly polluting industries of plastic, chemical, metal and many other are becoming rampant (Bentinck & Chikara, 2001). In addition, illegal stockyards or godowns of marble, granites, furniture, etc. are highly common in the peripheries of such villages. Many open plots in the villages are converted into marriage or event spaces, hotels, and various other uses. Unhealthy living conditions prevail because of the flourishment of such unmonitored and unregulated land uses.

This leads to a situation where these settlements remain undeveloped pockets in the city fabric.

The first Master Plan of Delhi in 1961 prescribed roadmap for the development of villages in Delhi until 1981. For that purpose, vacant lands around the villages were reserved for community facilities. However, in most cases, these vacant parcels were encroached and illegally developed.

In 1979, a perspective plan was constituted for the development of sub-standard areas in Delhi, which includes villages (Shrivastav, 2007). By 1981, there were 389 villages in Delhi, 111 urban and 258 rural settlements (DDA, 1986). A Mini Master Plan focusing on the planning of the essential services was also proposed in 1984, but was never implemented. The Mini Master Plan, however, suggested that the exemption from building regulations in the lal doras should end (Shrivastav, 2007). A sanction plan in 1983, limited construction of buildings in lal doras up to two

40

and a half floors (Pati, 2015). By 2000, urban village population was 0.88 million, 6.4 per cent of Delhi’s total population (Chattopadhay, 2014). The second Master Plan of Delhi for 2001, emphasized on planned development of abadis in lal dora areas. However, due to lack of coordination between the number of bodies that prepared the plan, the villages could not be integrated with their surrounding areas. In 2004, a circular stated that buildings that were constructed after August 2004 will be subject to building bye-laws (Chattopadhay, 2014). Further in May 2006, a committee that would look into unauthorized construction in Delhi was formed by the government of Delhi under the leadership of Tejendra Khanna, former Lt. Governor of Delhi. The committee specifically highlighted the failure of the planning mechanism in Delhi, particularly the DDA and MCD (Khanna, 2006). Consequently, the Expert Committee on Lal Dora (ECLD) was formulated particularly to deal with the issues of the ‘urban villages’ (Shrivastav, 2007). Currently, the building activities in lal dora are governed by the instructions in the circular, ‘The Building Regulations for Special Area, Unauthorized Regularized Colonies and Village Abadi 2010’. It states that the exemptions related to the sanction of building plans will cease to exist from the date of execution of these regulations (Pati, 2015).

The speed of acquisition has outpaced the growth of formal housing in Delhi, as a result, large population is forced to reside in substandard houses. With the collision between villagers and enforcement agencies, high number of unauthorized housing units mushroomed in and around urban villages. In the past few decades, migration in Delhi has increased, and urban villages have become the prime sources of affordable housing to these migrants. In most cases, the property owners construct multi-storey buildings to benefit from the large migrants’ inflow by leasing rooms in such buildings. DDA could neither guard the acquired lands, nor it allowed the private sector to develop them. One-time compensation to the villagers of their lands did not prove to be sufficiently helpful. Villagers could not utilize the compensation amount effectively because of lack of marketable skills and guidance from the government. Land values’ appreciation also benefited only a few, mostly private developers. Many villagers outright sold the properties to outsiders, and the speculative buyers exploited the situation (Singh, 2013). The landless searched for employment in the city. Moreover, the government successfully evaded the potential relocation of the villagers. The lofty objectives in the Master Plan completely ignored the fate of the urban village dwellers, who were left with an uncertainty.

Under the current planning mechanisms, urban villages are the isolated and alienated entities where a haphazard and chaotic pattern emerges. Non-compatible economic activities and ignorance of the traditional environments leads to the disintegration of these communities. As a result, there social and physical environments are continuously deteriorating. The rapid urbanization demands for more and more villages swamped into the urban limits. The phenomenon that was surfaced in 1950s has been extremely intensified. These spaces are widely regarded disastrous for the city’s development. However, similar to unauthorized colonies,

41

villages of Delhi, perform a vital role in providing affordable housing to the working class and cheap labor to the urban middle class. Inadequate urban planning, poor management, and a series of ineffective land regulations have been accumulated to create a massive urban failure in the form of these settlements. Therefore, it is important to study these villages with respect to the context and the stage of urbanization.

42

SECTION 2C. INFORMALITY – THE PARADOX ‘The informal Delhi’ constitute various complexities and contradictions. The existence of ‘unauthorized colonies’ and ‘urban villages’ are just few of them. These settlements present a paradoxical scenario. In case of the urban villages, rural and urban are the two ends of a civilizational continuum. They continue to possess distinct socio-economic characteristics.

Therefore, if settlements retain features of the two opposite edges, they certainly comprise a paradox (Mehra, 2005). Second, in these settlements, the ‘formal’ and ‘legal’ systems intricately bind with the ‘informal’ and ‘illegal’ systems. Urban sociability goes beyond strict demarcations of ‘formal’ and ‘informal’, of becoming and belonging of visibility and invisibility, and of normative and dysfunctional, and the use of the possibilities for one to change the apprehension and the use of the other. Even though most of the informal settlements can be categorized as unofficial zones, they often follow very formal rules, although different from what is largely defined as the official formal system. The informal approach adopted in the construction of unauthorized colonies and urban villages can be seen in the illegal extensions of the authorized or formal buildings as well (Mukherjee, 1988). Altogether, the phenomena of ‘urban villages’ and ‘unauthorized colonies’ pose a serious dilemma for policy makers and urban planners alike, for it required reconciling contrasting policy and planning ends. It also presents a serious challenge for urban governance and management too, because the bifurcations present in the two kinds of settlements require different management strategies. Finally, howsoever, adroit the policy measures and planning exercise may be, such a paradoxical characterization of a settlement would definitely pose an identity crisis and an existential dilemma for the inhabitants. Therefore, the paradox demands for revised classifications of these settlements that acknowledge the prevailing complexities (see Illustration 12).

Proposed Classification – Villages

The transformation from rural occupation to urban occupation is a slow and gradual process. The villages pass through certain stages of transition: rural village (pre-transition phase) to a fringe village (transition phase), and then to an urban village (post-transition phase) (Datta, 2004). Thus while such settlements have to adjust to new types of economic activities, form agricultural to non-agricultural, and the changes do not come overnight. In the process of transformation, the villagers also go through attitudinal and lifestyle changes. Therefore, urban villages cannot be simply graded as ‘urban’ but rather should be graded as being in a process of urbanization. This view realizes a new transitional stage, ‘urbanizing village’ or ‘semi-urbanized village’. The process of adopting and adapting to urbanism is common both in an urban village and an urbanizing village. However, there are significant differences between the two stages of urbanization. An urbanizing village reflects the process of transformation of an economic order and lifestyle. An

43

urban village is an evolved form of an urbanizing village which is transformed, and has sufficiently merged into the surrounding urban landscape. ‘Urbanizing village’ typically flourishes in the interface of rural and urban areas, urban-rural fringes or peri-urban zones, and typically serve lower or middle income population. In the process of evolution, many urbanizing villages of 1970s are now intensely commercialized. They have become centers of various urban activities. The intensity of the transformation is determined by the interaction between the formal and the informal processes. The governance mechanism completely ignores the transition process of these villages, and these settlements are generally categorized as either ‘urban villages’ or ‘rural villages’. The research centers on the hypothesis that the villages in Delhi are starkly different across the urban-rural continuum of the city in terms of built environment characteristics. This study, therefore, presents a new classification for the villages in Delhi. The three derived categories are urban, rural, and urbanizing or semi-urban villages.

Proposed Classification - Unauthorized colonies

In the case of unauthorized colonies of the capital city, a wide range of situations prevail, alongside which dynamics of inner transformation can be perceived. Similar to urban villages, unauthorized colonies in Delhi also possess significant differences with respect to the urban-rural continuum of the city. As previously discussed, urban villages evolved from rural to urban with the process of urban expansion. Resultantly, every village in Delhi reflects different phase of transition or urbanization process. Unauthorized colonies, on the other hand, are the settlements that have emerged out of the urban development process, a product of illegal conversion of agricultural land into residential settlements, it is in fact a concomitant of urbanization in many developing countries. Nonetheless, these colonies have also experienced different levels of urbanization during the course of their transformation over the years. Hence, unauthorized colonies can be reclassified based on their scale of urbanization and location on the urban-rural continuum of Delhi. The proposed categories are urban unauthorized colonies and semi-urban unauthorized colonies.

Moreover, the disparity is also visible in terms of the urban spatial pattern. The two observed categories in that respect are: structured and unstructured unauthorized colonies. Unstructured settlements are usually defined as dense settlements, often no real subdivision of land is done, and these areas are characterized by rapid and unplanned development. Structured unauthorized colonies are similar to any formal settlement in the city, characterized by relatively planned development and low density, but with no formal approval. In unstructured settlements, street layout tends to be more organic and irregular, while the more structured settlements exhibit perpendicular intersections and parallel roads. Therefore, unauthorized colonies in Delhi can be categorized on the basis of degree of standardization of spatial forms, with structured

44

45

settlements being more standardized than unstructured settlements. Currently, the Delhi government defines unauthorized colonies in the city under a single definition. The presented typologies clearly present dichotomies that demands for specific policy framework. The approach by the city authorities since the first Master Plan in 1962 has failed to acknowledge the paradoxical challenges that these settlements present. The complication can be understood by studying the built environment characteristics, a strategy that is clearly ignored in the policies and guidelines framed by the city. The next section, therefore, tries to explain the distinction by understanding the built environment and urban spatial characteristics of few of the villages and the unauthorized colonies in the city of Delhi. The selected case study sites are: 1. New Aruna Nagar Colony (North Delhi, Urban Core): Current classification – Unauthorized colony Proposed classification – Urban unauthorized colony 2. Rajpur Khurd Extension (South Delhi, Peri-Urban): Current classification – Unauthorized colony Proposed classification – Semi-Urban unauthorized colony 3. Mohammadpur Village (South Delhi, General urban): Current classification – Urban Village Proposed classification – Urban Village 4. Chandan Hula (South Delhi, Peri-Urban): Current classification – Rural Village Proposed classification – Semi-Urban Village

46

SECTION 3

47

SECTION 3A. BUILT ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS Informal settlements in Delhi and many other cities in India depicts many non-uniform characteristics. In one case consolidated patterns dominate while other settlements have sparse built houses. There are noticeable variations in house forms. Informality possesses patterns that overlap, interact, and mutate in random ways. Since no planning guidelines are followed in the housing development in these settlements, the house forms developed are the results of individual’s intuitive design methods. Unlike formal settlements, classification and identification of urban types is challenging in the case of informal settlements. The main aim of this section is to analyze the built environments of the informal settlements in Delhi and to find for relevant variables and methodologies that can be used to identify informal settlements’ types.

Built Environment Analysis means underrating physical environment in relation to people and society. It includes evaluating housing, neighborhood and street typologies, and urban spatial patterns. Rapoport conceptualizes a built environment into four components: the organization of space, time, meaning, and communication; a system of activities that take place in a system of settings; the cultural milieu; and fixed, semi-fixed, or non-fixed elements (Rapoport A. , 1977).

One of the theoretical frameworks adopted to reveal the physical and spatial structures of a neighborhood is the field of typo-morphological studies. The study describes urban forms (morphology) with respect to the typologies of buildings and open spaces (type). It is derived from the study of typical spaces and elements. The field of typo-morphological studies is focused on defining three fundamental physical elements of a built environment: open spaces, plots, and streets (Moudon A. , 1994). It defines urban form as a dynamic and continuously evolving entity.

Moudon (1992) further adds that house forms, lot sizes, and street layouts are essential elements to define urban forms. He states that house forms are influenced by lot sizes, and certain lot forms correspond to particular street patterns (Moudon A. V., 1992). Rapoport argues that physical environments cannot be distinguished by merely the presence or absence of certain characteristics. In many case, it is the degree, scale, frequency, and intensity that effectively explains the environment (Rapoport A. , Vernacular Architecture, 1990).

Considering the complexities that informal settlements present, it seems relevant to employ multiple variables to derive classifications. Therefore, in order to develop the typologies, multiple variables are being sought. These include, for example, building characteristics, plot characteristics, spaces, street characteristics, density, and land uses. These variables are derived from a user perspective and they simplify the categorization by making the typologies polythetic.

Certain typologies could differ slightly on one variable but be associated with others. The process of classification identifies settlements with similar characteristics derived from a pre-defined classification methodology. However, when the scale of classifications extends to the whole city,

48

it becomes relevant to limit the number of descriptors in order to reduce the cognitive load. The study aims at providing the basis for rational approach on classifying the informal settlements based on physical environments. Finally, the methods employed in this study can be used for analyzing other built environments in contexts with similar socio-physical characteristics to those exist in the selected sites. As discussed earlier, there is a gap between planning practices and onground needs, it is considered that the outcome generated from this study will contribute towards re-orienting the planning approach.

Built Environment Determinants

One of the objectives of this study is to classify informal settlements by analyzing building characteristics, plot characteristics, spaces, street characteristics, density, and land uses within a rapidly urbanizing city context. The settlement typologies derived in this study refers to settlements having a common set of physical characteristics. Informal settlements in this study are classified by employing a common set of physical characteristics in terms of street, land use, spaces, plot, building, and density (see Illustration 13 & 14).

Street characteristics:

Streets trigger economic and social activities; they connect private to public domain. Street can be distinguished by studying the following three characteristics: street hierarchies and street intersections. Streets in informal settlements follow a hierarchy of different widths and land uses.

Rapoport argues that pedestrians and motorists perceive street patterns differently because of the divergence in speeds. Therefore, street hierarchies can be formulated by identifying the intensity of motorist and non-motorists traffic (Rapoport A. , Pedestrian Street Use: Culture and Perception, 1987). Street patterns in informal settlements are generally characterized by fractured and labyrinthian street grid. Krier presents multiple range of possible permutations of street intersections’ forms. He presents a relation between number of streets intersecting and possible ways one or more streets may intersect with a square or street (Krier, 1979).

Land uses:

The illegal invasion of land in informal settlements characterizes inappropriate land uses. Failure of land use planning results in physical disorder, unsustainable urban growth, and environmental inadequacies. The study observes available types of uses, land use intensity, and concentration pattern of a particular land use. The study reveals pattern of land use across different streets in a settlement. The typical land use types employed are residential, commercial, mixed, open, amenities, and industrial. Land use is used to define the economic status of a settlement, for example, highly commercial, moderately commercial, or highly residential.

49

Physical space is a void with a potential of becoming a place when given a contextual meaning.

Spaces can be distinguished as internal/indoor or external/outdoor spaces. Gehl categorizes spaces into public and private spaces. Private spaces can be courtyard, garden, or even privately used street spaces parallel to a plot. Public spaces are usually communal spaces, green areas, and other commonly used outdoor spaces (Gehl, 1987). The study divides outdoor activities into two types: purposed and spontaneous. Social activities are supported whenever purposed spaces (community spaces, parks, etc.) are sufficiently and efficiently provided. Informal settlements, however, lack purposed activity spaces. Spontaneous activities occur as a direct consequence of people using or being at a space. It is predominant in the case of informal settlements in the form of street voids, with multiple spatial forms, that shape into public nodes.

Plot characteristics:

Plot size is a culturally bound phenomenon, therefore, varies significant from region to region.

The size and shape of plots determine the buildings’ built up space. In informal settlements, plot dimensions varies dramatically because of absence of formal urban design regulations. There has been little agreement on an ideal plot size or a minimum plot size. In the urbanizing cities like Delhi, where formal planning has limited influence over the city’s built environment, a study of plot characteristics is crucial in search for optimal plot size for addressing the urban issues.

Carlos Barquin et al characterizes plot in low-income settlements in India by using variables plot area, plot ration and exposure. Plot area refers to sizes of plots, plat ratio indicates the shape of the plots (proportion of width and depth of the plots), and plot exposure refers to the number of sides of that plot adjacent to public open spaces or streets (Barquin, Brook, Puri, R., & Rybczynski, W., 1986).

Building characteristics:

In his study, studying building characteristics aim at observing and documenting building types in terms of their height, age, and condition. Formal characteristics may also include typical floor plan, or it may also include whether buildings are row, high-rise, detached, or semidetached structures. King states that to classify houses the selected features must be able to significantly distinguish between them (King, 1994). The criteria adopted, however, also values the degree of differentiation between the variables. Typical façade characteristics are also observed by quantifying fenestrations proportion (doors and windows) and height and width proportions on a stretch (s) that ideally reflects the characteristics of the neighborhood, a block, or a cluster.

Although the methods adopted in this study are time consuming and challenging, they have the advantage to bring out more practical and user oriented results. The exercise of field observation was complicated, especially with the uncertainty on the correctness of land uses and plot boundaries. Therefore, the aim is to present the overall picture rather than endeavoring on extensive detailing.

50

Density (physical):

In design sense, density is often used to describe the degree or intensity of a development.

Similar to plot sizes, ambiguity and uncertainty arises when defining density as ‘high’ or ‘low’. In urban design, density is measured in terms of dwelling units or built spaces area and floor area ratio per specified area. Density is a variable that can be used to assess environmental qualities of spaces. The study discusses three levels or scales of density: settlement or overall density, identified sub-areas or block density, and particular cluster or stretch density. In situations like informal settlements, where streets are irregular and boundaries are not clear, identifying a block or a cluster is challenging. Therefore, blocks or clusters are highlighted by identifying lucid edges, typically streets that are wide enough to accommodate one-way vehicular traffic or more, and noticeable land use and built environment changes.

51

52

SECTION 3B. CASE STUDIES New Aruna Nagar Colony

53

54

55

56

57

Rajpur Khurd Extension

58

59

60

61

62

Mohammadpur Village

63

64

65

66

67

68

Chandan Hola Village

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

Case Studies’ Comparative Analysis/Matrix

78

79

SECTION 4

80

SECTION 4A. RECOMMENDATIONS Implementation failures, unnecessary restrictions, inadequate monitoring of illegal developments, and non-transparent planning mechanism by the agencies like the DDA and MCD resulted in the proliferation of uncontrolled informal settlements throughout Delhi. The managerial and institutional failure of the prime agency, the Delhi Development Board (DDA) is aptly demonstrated by Cedric Pugh and various committees assigned by the Indian Government to investigate the matter. Short-term policies and corrupt practices in bureaucracy have dragged the issue from the solution. Almost all the policies, so far, project broad statements, but no concrete methodologies have even been described. Therefore, the aim of the study is to avoid reiterating the recommendations that are already discussed in many government documents, and focus on presenting specific policy measures.

The traditional approach of intervention appears to be inadequate to cope with the rapidly transforming and convoluting informal housing sector. Preventive as well as curative approaches are advocated in the report. Curative means improving and renewing existing settlements, and preventive means acknowledging the increasing demand and providing affordable housing and other services. The prime goal is to identify and prevent semi-urbanizing informal settlements from becoming the urban nightmares, and to cure the already dreadful condition of the informal settlements in the urban expanse of the city. The proposed recommendations are addressing the issues by adopting a tripartite solution, that is focusing on the three distinct levels of urbanization: city level, settlements’ level (general), and typologies’ level (specific). Rather than making very ambitious plans, the attempt is to propose tailor-made solutions for distinct typologies coupled with some broad general policies. The intention is to effectively and efficiently utilize the capacity in the settlements. Individual micro-plans for the development of the informal settlements needs to be carefully drawn with the involvement of community members. The attempt is to revitalize the informal settlements to make the environment more habitable.

As discussed earlier, informal settlements, throughout the city, are viewed under a single lens as the administration fails to recognize the rural-urban fringe areas as an area with unique features, and as an area that is in a transitional phase of urbanization. The characteristics of an informal settlement significantly depend on its location on the urban-rural continuum of the city.

Therefore, the first and the pivotal recommendation is to construe sub-categories of the informal settlements. Furthermore, similar method can be formulated to identify the sub-categories throughout Delhi's city limits, and formulate policies accordingly. However, before broadly discussing the recommendations, it is crucial to understand the concerns and the suggestions of the various stakeholders.

81

Stakeholders or Key Informants Apart from observing the built environment, interviews of stakeholders were conducted during multiple field visit periods in July 2016. Interviews focused on two sets of respondents: key actors and individual groups of residents encountered during field visits. The key actors or informants include ward councilors (representatives of villages), presidents of the Resident Welfare Associations (RWA) of the unauthorized colonies in Delhi, and the Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) of the Constituency.

The key actors interviewed are:

Kartar Singh Tanwar (Member of Legislative Assemble, Chhatarpur Constituency, Delhi government’s representative of Chandan Hula and Rajpur Khurd Extension) Anita Tyagi, Councilor, Chhatarpur, Ward 174 (representative of Chandan Hula Village) Rohit Bhardwaj, RWA president, Rajpur Khurd Extension

Karten Tsering, RWA president, New Aruna Nagar Colony

Dharamveer Singh, Councilor, R. K. Puram, Ward 167 (representative Mohammadpur village)

The interviews were held on all the four sites (New Aruna Nagar Colony, Rajpur Extension, Mohammadpur, and Chandan Hula). Each of these sites has been subject to different levels of urbanization pressure. The distinction is obvious between the settlements in the urban areas and in the fringes of the city. The list of questions was not pre-determined, but the focus was to know the key advantages and disadvantages of living in the settlements. The key actors were asked their suggestions regarding the improvement of the situation. The variable evolved during the course of interviewing. The in-depth survey provided answers to most of the research questions.

In interview, the unauthorized colonies’ residents cite lack of tenure security as a major issue.

Major concern in the urban villages, and to some extent also in the unauthorized colonies, is the inefficient provision of basic services like water, electricity and sewerage. Residents in the urbanrural fringes are concerned more about the proliferation of illegal commercial activities. In Aruna Nagar Colony (a Tibetan refugee colony) and Chandan Hula (a rural village), communal stronghold is the biggest asset in the settlement. Affordability and closeness to workplace are the most common reasons for living in these settlements. From the interview, it can be concluded that there is a demand for tenure security and efficient basic amenities in the settlements.

82

83

The key actors and informants collectively provided several suggestions and raised concerns that are worth considering: “Lifting the exemptions from building regulations will put numerous restrictions” (one of the condition of regularization)

“High-rise development must be permitted”

“Commercial activities must be regularized”

“Land ownership uncertainty needs to be resolved” “Unauthorized developments must be regularized” “Basic services should be efficiently provided”

Three levels of proposed interventions: I.

City Level Recommendations (general) Decentralizing the urban compactness: Viewing the current overexploited urban structure, it has become crucial to restrict urban sprawl. There is a need to revisit the policies related to urban expansion, and identify new centers where densification or urbanization can be directed. The city growth limit needs to be redefined. The new centers can be located in the peri-urban zones, and must be well connected with the urban core. The previous decentralization polices adopted in Delhi resulted in the establishment of several satellite cities, but no edge city. The Master Plan for Delhi 2021 recommends developing five new subcities within the urban limits of Delhi, however, the plans are not yet executed.

Land regularization: In the dense informal settlements of Delhi, it is difficult to implement regularization without any demolition and uprooting of the existing structures. However, this method is not very popular, and it has some serious social and political outcomes.

Practical approach would be to prevent and cure the products of informality to achieve a balanced solution without disturbing the spatial qualities. Regularization must look beyond mere land titling. It must be accompanied by improvements of public services, introducing job opportunities, and upgrading the built-environment.

Furthermore, there is a need to introduce regulation along with regularization in order to ensure a sustainable socioeconomic growth.

84

Monitoring: The implementing authorities in many developing nations face the difficulty of monitoring the informal growth. Due to the modern urban dynamics, the traditional methods of observation and analyzing have become ineffective and outdated. There is a need to highly focus on monitoring through satellite imagery and geographic Information System (GIS). For instance, in Delhi, unauthorized colonies first emerged in the East and the West sections of the city, mainly because these were the least monitored areas. Remote sensing allows to monitor any development with high accuracy and minimum efforts. Moreover, scarcity of data is another issue faced by the authorities. Data collection using modern technologies has become very essential to improve the understanding of the informal settlements.

Integration: In the case of informal urbanism, integration needs to surpass upgradation.

Integration means linking informal urbanization with the formal section of the city.

Integration can be achieved at three basic levels. First, physical intervention by bringing public investments to the informal settlements, by the means of improving connectivity and public services. Secondly, social integration can be achieved by addressing social needs and encouraging communal involvement in the planning process. Thirdly, juridical integration by regularizing the settlements (Khalifa, 2015).

II.

Settlement Level Recommendations (general) Tenure security: Tenure security is perhaps the most important element associated with the regularization of informal settlements. The lack of tenure security arises uncertainty and the fear of forced eviction, leaving the most vulnerable section of the society at a possibility of losing their habitat. In Delhi, even after regularization of an unauthorized colony, multi-ownership remains a hurdle. The plots were exchanged using ‘the power of attorney’ but the floors constructed afterwards do not hold any legal status.

Presently, the DDA has not framed any policy that addresses the issue.

Land sharing: Land sharing means an owner of illegally occupied land agrees to share the property with other residents of the settlement. The owner, instead of monetary exchanges, gets a developed piece of the land, usually the most commercially viable part. The remaining parcels of the land are sold or leased, usually at a below market price.

Recently, the Delhi government approved the policy of land sharing in the city, but 85

the policy is limited to large scale land acquisitions. Therefore, introducing the policy at small scale, at the settlement levels, could be highly effective. Such methods, however, needs high levels of community organization.

Enhancing accessibility: It is noted in the case studies that accessibility significantly defines the land use and the condition of a sub-area or a cluster. Therefore, improving the street conditions by the means of introducing lighting and paving is urgently required. Street widening must be done wherever required and possible. It is important to recognize the existing street layout that has evolved as a result of human’s natural response. The approach is to preserve the existing street patterns while maintaining minimum standards.

Impede encroachment: It seems obvious that if careful planning is not observed, there is a high possibility that the open spaces that function as part of social interactions and daily life activities will be encroached eventually. Therefore, there is an urgent need to define all the open spaces: voids and gaps between buildings and on streets, vacant plots, and undeveloped or unclaimed land. It is noted that the narrow streets in most of the informal settlements is an outcome of series of encroachments. Such encroachments must be immediately trimmed off because it blocks sunlight and ventilation and makes the environment uninhabitable.

Increase awareness: Community involvement must be encouraged in the policy making procedure. Inputs from the residents and stakeholders must be incorporated at different stages of development. Community awareness and outreach programs must be introduced to educate the residents about the government’s initiatives. It is important to respect the cultural aspirations of the community. For instance, in the case of New Aruna Nagar Colony, a Tibetan refugee colony, cultural heritage needs to be promoted and preserved by introducing standards that encourage historical design elements.

III.

Typologies Level Recommendations (Specific) Decentralizing urban services:

Urban Villages and Unauthorized colonies - Bringing the basic services is extremely difficult in many settlements due to high level of compactness and lack of open spaces. In such cases, components of physical infrastructures can be decentralized or 86

located outside the dense clusters. The method will ensure services to multiple families by concentrating the infrastructure at one location.

Semi-Urban Villages and Unauthorized colonies – Since compactness is currently not an issue in the case of semi-urban settlements. Therefore, provisions of laying direct service lines must be encouraged at the current stage of urbanization.

Urban renewal: Urban Villages and Unauthorized colonies – Many buildings in the informal settlements, in the dense urban areas, are in dreadful condition. Renewal of such decaying structures is strongly encouraged. The approach would be to reuse the exiting urban fabric by protecting the overall fragility of the area.

Commercial use: Semi-Urban Villages and Unauthorized Colonies - Commercial activities must be regularized and regulated. The assumption is that the potential investors will be willing to convert the residential use into commercial uses. This is evident from the case studies where the central streets have commercial activities throughout.

Urban Villages and Unauthorized colonies – Commercial activities must be restricted in urban villages and unauthorized colonies because the commercial aspect of the settlements is already over-utilized. Many of such elements have a central commercial street which is highly cramped. Moreover, interior clusters lack appropriate accessibility. Therefore, urbanization must be moderated after a certain limit.

New Development:

Semi-Urban Villages and Unauthorized Colonies – New developments must be encouraged because there are several vacant lots and open spaces in these types of settlements. Development can be encouraged by the means of incentivizing or providing density bonuses.

Urban Villages and Unauthorized colonies – Informal settlements in the urban areas of the city lack any open spaces. There is an urgent need of de-densification. It can be achieved by land-sharing. Several plots can be accumulated to create open spaces which can be used for community services.

87

Vertical Expansion: Semi-Urban Villages and Unauthorized Colonies – Semi-urban informal settlements are not highly dense, at least in most parts, moreover, streets are wide enough to accommodate multi-storey buildings without deteriorating the environmental quality. Vertical expansion is an ideal solution to accommodate the increasing urban population and housing needs.

Urban Villages and Unauthorized colonies – Since urban informal settlements have extremely narrow streets enveloped by three to four storey buildings, it is highly discouraged to allow further vertical expansion as it will worsen the already deteriorating built environment of these settlements.

It will be impractical to believe that the recommendations will be fully effective immediately after implementation. The process will have to face multiple complexities, ranging from socioeconomic to political levels. These recommendations are therefore presented as benchmarks for addressing the issues of informal housing in Delhi. There are certain limitations associated with the research. Therefore, future research should address certain missing links: identification of vertical expansion and infill development, monitoring the evolving land use pattern over a certain period of time to understand the trends of growth; identifying and classifying the semi-urban informal settlements where commercial development can be prioritized; and monitoring the impact of land-pooling policy. Altogether, there is a clear distinction between the settlements located in the fringes and the urban areas of the city. The classification, therefore, needs to be realized to avoid the transformation of the settlements in the city’s fringes into urban miseries.

88

89

SECTION 4B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Urbanization in Delhi is marked by urban sprawl caused by large increases in population. This physical phenomenon of urban expansion is instrumented by engulfing adjoining villages into the territory and by transforming rural areas into urban areas. In the process, agricultural areas are transformed into residential or commercial areas. Since independence, Delhi has expanded enormously to the present spread of almost 800 sq. km (more than 50 percent area is urbanized) indicates that the entire area under the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) will be entirely urbanized by 2021 (Mehra, 2005). From 1961 to 2011, the overall decadal growth rate was around 50 per cent (Singh, 2013). The population growth can be attributed to poverty induced migration mainly from the neighboring states and the large influx of refugees in 1947. The changing socio-economic pattern in Delhi coupled with the rapid increase in population resulted in an acute shortage of housing and the related infrastructure.

The issue of housing shortage got worse by 1950s, the government decided to intervene by framing the first Master Plan for Delhi in 1962 with the formation of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 1957. The purpose was to balance out the polarized land market, but the outcomes in fact exaggerated the housing shortage by creating an artificial ‘land squeeze’. The key policy described in the Master Plan was the acquisition of agricultural land. Apparently, between the first Master Plan in 1962 and latest in 2007, only 4,000 hectares of development area was added in Delhi (less than 5 per cent addition to the 1962 figure), while the population increased by nearly 6 million. The housing shortage has worsened the situation, leaving more than half of the city’s population to reside in informal and unauthorized settlements. The unplanned or informal settlements in Delhi can be categorized in seven typologies with several sub-groups: Unauthorized Colonies, Regularized unauthorized Colonies, Urban Villages, Rural Villages, JhuggiJhopdi Clusters (JJ Clusters), Notified Slum Areas, JJ Resettlement Colonies. The main domains of this study are the ‘unauthorized colonies’ and the ‘urban villages’ which are comprehensively discussed in the report.

In order to understand the characteristics of the informal settlements with respect to their location in the city, the spatial organization of the city is derived by superimposing the concepts presented by Ramachandran (1989), McGee (1991), Bryant et al. (1982), and Bentinck (2000) over three urban components (or maps) – (i) distribution of population density (see Illustration 6) (ii) the spatial pattern of urban expansion and (iii) future land allocation map derived from the Master Plan 2021 for the city. The derived urban-rural gradient map of Delhi is dissected into six zones: urban core, general urban, sub-urban, peri-urban, rural, and extreme rurality (see Illustrations 8 and 9). One end of this continuous scale is the urban core, the other is extreme rurality or nature. Further, the concept of ‘unauthorized colonies’ and ‘urban villages’ are

90

thoroughly investigated by comprehending the policies and guidelines that shaped these settlements. The efforts and the types of government’s interventions are also analyzed.

Delhi Development Authority (DDA) defines unauthorized colonies as the residential pockets that have emerged without the city’s authorization and in disregard of the master plan and zonal plan regulations (Chakrabarti, 2001). According to Delhi Development Authority, there are more than 1600 unauthorized colonies in Delhi. Many of them have been regularized from time to time, the regularization announcements usually coincide with the state or general elections. These colonies have slightly more secure land tenure than the squatter settlements. In this scenario, it can be interpreted that unauthorized colonies exist at a threshold legal space, while they are not considered a part of the formal city, they are also not perceived as entirely illegal like squatters (Mukherjee, 1982). In spite of the numerous advantages that these colonies offer, UAC exact tremendous costs to the city in the form of environmental and socio-economic degradation.

Immediately after the formation of the Delhi Development Board, the decision to acquire land was made public in 1957, but the actual legal notices to the landowners were not served till 1959. the time gap between the announcement and the implementation of the policy resulted in a chaotic situation. Several illegal colonies developed between the two-year delay period. The farmers or landowners subdivided and sold their lands as residential plots to avoid the land acquisition by the DDA. The resultant illegal colonies on the agricultural land was later termed as ‘unauthorized colonies’. With the onset of an unauthorized colony, the efforts for regularization begin. Regularization means formally acknowledging the existence of a settlement. Previously in 1961, 1969, and 1977 about 110, 101 and 567 unauthorized colonies were regularized respectively (Ahmad et al., 2012). Currently, a total 1639 unauthorized colonies are under consideration for regularization (Economic Survey of Delhi, 2014-15). In late 2012, the government issued an order marking 895 colonies ‘eligible for regularization’; however, due to litigation and other policy issues, no substantial decision could be taken (Sheikh & Banda, 2014).

‘Urban villages’ are the rural settlements that have acquired urban characteristics due to the transformation of its agricultural base into residential and industrial colonies in the process of land acquisitions by the Delhi government. In Delhi there are 362 villages out of which 115 are ‘rural villages’ and 227 are ‘urban villages’ (Shrivastav, 2007). Under the land acquisition schemes of the first Master Plan in 1962, the farmlands were acquired for construction of planned colonies, and the residential areas of the villages were demarcated by a boundary called ‘lal dora’.

The development within the lal doras is called ‘abadi’, and any extension of the village outside the lal dora is called ‘the extended abadi’. The lal dora areas were kept free from building regulations. Under the current planning mechanisms, urban villages are the isolated and alienated entities where a haphazard and chaotic pattern emerges. Non-compatible economic activities and ignorance of the traditional environments leads to the disintegration of these communities. As a result, there social and physical environments are continuously deteriorating.

91

The study is focused on the hypothesis that the informal settlements in Delhi, particularly the unauthorized colonies and the urban villages, constitute various complexities and contradictions, therefore, there is a need for revised classifications of these settlements that acknowledge the prevailing complexities. In other words, the informal settlements in Delhi are starkly different across the urban-rural continuum of the city. The categories for unauthorized colonies are ‘semiurban unauthorized colonies’ and ‘urban unauthorized colonies’, and villages are categorized as ‘urban’, ‘rural’, and ‘semi-urban’. The distinction is explained by understanding the built environment and urban spatial characteristics of few of the villages and the unauthorized colonies in the city of Delhi. The selected case study sites are: New Aruna Nagar Colony (unauthorized colony) and Rajpur Khurd Extension are unauthorized colonies; Mohammadpur and Chandan Hula are urban and rural villages respectively.

The presence of a typology in a particular zone of the city’s urban-rural gradient is broadly explained the table below.

Table 1: Concentration of villages and unauthorized colonies on Delhi's urban-rural continuum

UrbanVillages

Semi-Urban RuralVillages Villages

Urban core

Low

N/A

Sub-urban

High

Moderate

N/A

Low

High

Urban general Peri-urban

High Moderate

Rural/Desakota N/A

N/A

High

N/A

UrbanSemi-UrbanUnauthorized Unauthorized colonies colonies

Low

N/A

High

Moderate

Moderate

High Low

N/A

N/A

Moderate

High Low

The differences are evaluated by understanding various determinants of built environment: building characteristics, plot characteristics, street characteristics, density, and land uses. The results, on the basis of the study, describe that there are significant differences among the typologies of one form of an informal settlement. Where informal settlements in the urban expanse have highly dense urban fabric and dreadful living condition, the settlements in the peripheries are relatively in a better situation. However, the rapidly changing urban characteristics of these settlements demand for a specific and immediate planning intervention.

92

SECTION 4C. CONCLUSION Informal housing is widespread, particularly in the developing world. It is undeniable that informal settlements are the main component of urbanization in Delhi. Delhi has experienced rapid urbanization both in terms of population growth and in terms of spatial expansion. Much of the population growth can be attributed to poverty induced migration mainly from the neighboring states. The uncontrolled urbanization has generated a dramatic increase in the demand for housing and allied services. Since the independence in 1947, several efforts were made regarding the housing provision for low income groups. Various intervention strategies have been applied but with no success. Among the many steps taken by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), land acquisition was the major form of intervention. Instead of balancing the polarized housing market, the Land Acquisition Policy in fact exaggerated the housing shortage by creating an artificial ‘land squeeze’. The existing policy structure has failed to bridge the gap between the demand and supply of housing. Understandably, the Delhi government and the concerned authorities have found it difficult to keep pace with the scale of the complexities. As a result, people have resorted to alternative forms of housing, and there is an uncontrolled proliferation of informal settlements throughout the city. As a result, nearly half of the population is crammed into overcrowded informal settlements. The study focuses on two types of informal settlements in Delhi: Unauthorized colonies and urban villages. It is argued that these settlements constitute various complexities and contradictions.

Cities like Delhi are not only expanding rapidly but are also experiencing extensive conversion of rural land into urban use. To exclusively analyze the situation, an urban-rural gradient map of Delhi is derived that dissects the city into six zones: urban core, general urban, sub-urban, periurban, rural, and extreme rurality. One end of this continuous scale is the urban core, the other is extreme rurality or nature. The informal development of agricultural lands to evade land acquisition is the prime factor responsible for the formation of large number of unauthorized or illegal colonies in the urban-rural fringes of Delhi. Informal settlements in the city’s peripheries are generally at a stage of a major socioeconomic and physical transformation which poses new challenges. The transformation from rural occupation to urban occupation is a slow and gradual process. The governance mechanism completely ignores the transition process of these settlements. For instance, villages in the city are generally categorized as either ‘urban villages’ or ‘rural villages’, and the unauthorized colonies are defined under a single category. The study reveals that there is an ample variation in socio-physical characteristics among the informal settlements with respect to their location on the urban-rural continuum of Delhi. There is a need to disengage these settlements from the current classification, and to redefine the typologies based on their level or phase of urbanization. This study, therefore, presents a new classification for the villages and unauthorized colonies in Delhi. The three derived categories for the villages 93

are urban, rural, and urbanizing or semi-urban villages. The proposed categories for the unauthorized colonies are urban and semi-urban unauthorized colonies. Moreover, unauthorized colonies can be distinguished based on the urban spatial patterns under the categories of structured and unstructured colonies.

In order to understand the complexities of these settlements, built environment of four sites (Unauthorized colonies - New Aruna Nagar Colony and Rajpur Khurd Extension, and Villages – Mohammadpur and Chandan Hula), presenting distinct characteristics, is studied. The study revealed that the condition of built environment in the settlements located in the urban-rural fringes are at an acceptable level, but the conditions are dreadful in the urban expanse of the city. All the settlements lack key urban infrastructures to a considerable extent. The city-wide classification of informal settlements typologies, by the means of detailed case studies, provides a basis for recommendations and re-defining policy and planning approaches to efficiently and effectively optimize the existing opportunities. One of the main focus of the research has been to link built environment with spatial qualities. The study presents several general and typology specific methods to address the issues, some of them are: urban renewal, decentralizing urban services, and regulating and regularizing commercial activities. In the case of unauthorized colonies, regularization is an attempt to provide balance and bring certainty in these settlements.

Along with the provision of basic infrastructure, there is a need to ensure tenure security and to monitor any illegal development.

Delhi’s informal housing is an outcome of inappropriate urban planning schemes, poor implementation of the programs, and lack of provision of public housing and land supply. The acquisition policy has adversely effected the production of housing in Delhi, and contributed to increasing the housing shortage. The failure of the implementing bodies to mitigate the issue has made the phenomenon of informal settlements permanent and irreversible. In the current scenario, there remains a lack of understanding of the dynamic urban-rural interaction, and a lack of effective approaches to manage this challenging zone. Therefore, it has become obvious that Delhi’s villages and unauthorized colonies need integration through planning interventions.

However, such interventions need to look on unauthorized colonies and villages with a fresh perspective. As discussed earlier, there is a gap between planning practices and on-ground needs, it is considered that the outcome generated from this study will contribute towards re-orienting the planning approach. In this context, the haphazard urban conurbation demands futuristic planning and regional approach to achieve a sustainable community.

94

Bibliography Abraham, T., Ramchand, R., Ananth, P., Mohta, N., & Hariharan, M. (2014). The Regularization of Unauthorized Colonies. Delhi: Young India Fellowship 2013-14.

Ahmad, S., Sridharan, N., & Kono, N. (n.d.). Housing Supply System in Unauthorized Settlements in Delhi: Process and Outcomes.

Barquin, C., Brook, R., Puri, R., & Rybczynski, W. (1986). How the Other Half Builds, Volume 2. Montreal: McGill University.

Bell, M. M. (1992). The Fruit of Difference: The Rural-Urban COntinuum as a System of Indentity. Rural Sociology, 65-82. Retrieved from Sociology Discussion.

Bentinck, J. V. (2000). Unruly Urbanization of Delhi's Fringe, Changing Patterns of Land Use and the Livelihood. Groningen: University of Groningen.

Bentinck, J., & Chikara, S. (2001). Illegal Factories in Delhi, the Controversy, the Causes, and the Expected Future. Leuven and Brussels: Network-Association of European Researchers on Urbanisation in the South (N-AERUS) and European Science Foundation (ESF).

Bhan, G. (2009). Eviction, the urban Poor and the Right to the City in Millennial Delhi. Environment & Urbanization, 127-142.

Bryant, C., Russwurm, L., & McLellan, A. (1982). The City's Countryside: Land and its Management in the Rural-Urban Fringe. London; NewYork: Longman.

Chakrabarti, P. D. (2001). Coping with Informality and Illegality in Human Settlements in Developing Cities. Brussels: Network-Association of European Researchers on Urbanisation in the South (NAERUS) and European Science Foundation (ESF).

Chattopadhay, S. (2014). Dynamics and Growth Dichotomy of Urban VIllages: Case Study Delhi. Int. Journal for Housing Science, 81-94.

Datta, R. (2004). Territorial Integration : An Approach to address Urbanising Villages in the Planning for Delhi Metropolitan Area, India. Geneva: 40th ISoCaRP Congress 2004.

DDA. (1986). Development of Urban Villages. New Delhi: Delhi Development Authority.

Duany, Andres, & Talen, E. (2002). Transect Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association , 245-266.

Dupont, V. (2005). Peri-Urban Dynamics: Population, Habitat and Environment on the Peripheries of large Indian Metrpolis. Centre de Sciences Humaines.

ESD. (2015). Economic Survey of Delhi 2014-15. New Delhi: Delhi Department of Economic and Statistics .

Gehl, J. (1987). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. New York: Island Press.

Gihar, P. (2003). Social Structure in Urban India. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.

95

Ishtiyaq, M., & Kumar, S. (2011). Typology of Informal Settlements and Distribution of Slums in the NCT, Delhi. Journal of Contemporary India Studies: Space and Society, 37-46.

Khalifa, M. A. (2015). Evolution of informal settlements upgrading strategies in Egypt: From negligence to participatory development. Science Direct, Volume 6, Issue 4, 1151–1159.

Khanna, T. (2006). Report of the Tejendra Khanna Committee of Experts set up by Govt. of India to look Into various aspects of Unauthorized Constructions & Misuse of Premises in Delhi . New Delhi: Ministry of Urban Development.

Khidia, M. (2016). The Scenario of Unauthorized Colonies in Delhi. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.

King, A. (1994). Terminologies and Types: Making Sense of Some Types of Dwellings and. In K. A. Franck, & L. Schneekloth, Ordering Space: Types in Architecture and Design (pp. 127-144). New York: Van Nostrand.

Krier, R. (1979). Urban Space. London: Academy Group Ltd.

Lupala, J. M. (2002). Urban Types in rapidly Urbanising Cities, Analysis of Formal and Informal settlements in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology.

Mathur, K. (2006). K.K. Mathur Committee of Experts, Report on Unauthorized Development in Delhi.

New Delhi: Ministry of Urban Developemnt.

McGee, T., Koppel, B., & Ginsburg, N. (1991). The Extended Metropolis, Settlement Transition in Asia.

Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Mehra, A. K. (2005). Urban Villages of Delhi. In E. Hust , & M. Mann, Urbanization and Governance in India (pp. 279-310). New Delhi: Manohar Publishers and Distributors .

Mehta, M., & Mehta, D. (1991). Land for Shelter Deivery of Srviced Land in Metropolitan Areas.

Ahmedabad: CEPT University.

Mihir, P. (2011). Spatial Growth of Informal Settlements in Delhi; An Application of Remote Sensing.

Tempe: Arizona State University.

Moudon, A. (1994). Getting to Know the Built Landscape: Typomorphology. In K. A. Franck, & L. Schneekloth, Ordering Space: Types in Architecture and Design (pp. 289-311). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Moudon, A. V. (1992). The Evolution of Twentieth-Century Residential Forms: A American Case Study. In J. Whitehead, & Larkham, P.J., Urban landscapes, International Perspectives (pp. 170-206).

London: Routledge.

MPD 2021. (2007). Delhi Master Plan 2021. New Delhi: Delhi Development Authority.

Mukherjee, S. (1988). Unauthorized Colonies and the City of Delhi. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Pacione, M. (2005). Urban Geography, A Global Perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.

96

Pati, S. (2015). The Regime of Registers: Land Ownership and State Planning in the Urban Villages of Delhi. SOAS South Asia Institute Working Papers, 17-31.

Pugh, C. (1991). Housing and Land Policies in Delhi. Journal of Urban Affairs, Volume 3, 367-382.

Ramachandran, R. (1989). Urbanization and Urban Systems in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, India.

Rapoport, A. (1977). Human Aspects of Urban Form: Towards a Man-Environment Approach to Urban Form and Design. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Rapoport, A. (1987). Pedestrian Street Use: Culture and Perception. In A. V. Moudon, Public Streets for Public Use (pp. 80-94). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Rapoport, A. (1990). Vernacular Architecture. In M. Turan, Vernacular Architecture: Paradigms of Environmental Response. Aldershot: Avebury.

Roy, A. (2005). Urban Informality, Toward an Epistemology of Planning. Journal of American planning Association, 147-158.

Saxena, M., & Sharma, S. (2015). Periurban Area: A Review of Problems and Resolutions. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, 15-18.

Shah, A. M. (2012). The Village in the City, the City in the Village. Economic & Political Weekly, 17-19.

Shrivastav, P. (2007). Report of Expert Committee on Lal Dora. New Delhi: Delhi Development Authority.

Singh, S. (2013, September 30). Capital Needs a Redevlopment Plan to End the Urban Village Mess.

Retrieved from Hindustan Times: http://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/capital-needs-aredevelopment-plan-to-end-the-urban-village-mess/story-IZm9SJz3oVL6juASRKNu3M.html

UNHSP. (2003). The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements, United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Nairobi: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Wang, D. W. (2014). The Urban Village of Huanggang: A Successful Communal Model. In Z. Cheng, M. Wang, & J. Chen, Urban China in the New Era, Market Reforms, Current, and the Road Forward (pp. 63-82). New York: Springer.

97

APPENDIXES

98

99

THE INFORMAL DELHI Understanding the ‘Pucca’ or ‘Permanent’ Informal Settlements in Delhi Mohan Khidia

About Author:

Mohan Khidia

B. Arch – Gautam Buddh Technical University

M. U. R. P – University of California, Los Angeles

D-110, Mansarover Garden New Delhi – 110015

+91-9999011768

khidiamohan@gmail.com

100